tedcrawford: Soros, when he gets caught doing something left wing-ish, which he will most certainly do in the near future, will then be relevant for whatever is it he is doing at the time; right now he is not relevant at all to this subject.

The documents show a plan to develop a curriculum for teaching about climate change in K-12 schools, focusing on the message that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain -- two key points that are effective at dissuading teachers from teaching science."

Well, at least this is truthful. It is controversial and uncertain. Teaching that this is totally true cannot and should not be done at this point. Until we are able to separate normal global weather cycles from "global warming" there is nothing to teach.

This is a very disturbing expose. When I read articles such as this I feel hopeless at first. Then I realize how fortunate I am to be living where I can grow a large garden, keep a few hens, and continue efforts to be as self sufficient as I am able.

It is quite a shock to me that politics goes so deep as to influence what is taught. Somehow I always thought that was up to the teacher. I'm glad I had a few free-thinking instructors during my school years.

The key point here is this: If Global Climate Change is real or not, the TRUE question is this:

Should we still trash the earth? Should we still deplete the Earth until there is nothing left? Why shouldn't we focus on Green solutions? OK, maybe if Climate change isn't true - there may not be a rush anymore.

But does that mean we should start ignoring the benefits of living in a green, eco-friendly enviroment?

Hint: NO.

The important thing is to return to teaching math and science at all levels. Teach the kids the basics well enough that they can look at unbiased data and decide for themselves rather than taking the word of ignorant politicians and others who don't have a clue. This country puts itself into increasing jeopardy every year that we lag behind other developed countries in science and math.

Except correlation does not imply causation. Just because CO2 is increasing it doesnt mean that's what causing global temperature increases. I've yet to hear conclusive evidence that it's CO2 and not solar radiation that's causing temperature increases. Nor have I heard a rational explanation for the decline of global temperatures from the 1920's until the 1990s. If CO2 was the deterministic force of warming, then the temperatures should have risen steadily in that time period.

Except for the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and so we would predict anthropogenic climate change even if we had never looked at a thermometer.

Believe*

Academics*

You really know how to hammer home the point that you're better educated than republicans.

Everyone knows Republicans don't beleive in science, acadimics, or real world economics

@willowbrook

Well, at least this is truthful. It is controversial and uncertain.

It is controversial but not uncertain.

Teaching that this is totally true cannot and should not be done at this point. Until we are able to separate normal global weather cycles from "global warming" there is nothing to teach.

In that case, we shouldn't teach intelligent design in schools. Also, we should not teach kids stuff from bible because as far as I know the existence of God has not been confirmed yet. For all we know, it could just be a figment of someone's imagination.

Should not this be charged to all involved as felony fraud punishable by at least 5 years in prison?!?

How can you 'teach' the absence of something?

If a rock is dropped from the roof and goes straight down to hit the ground, that's a hypothesis. If it's dropped 100 times with the same results, that's a theory. If the rock floats away once in the 100 times, thats skepticism.

Climate change is a theory.

Next they'll want to teach gravity skepticism, but only if there's cash and influence involved.

The every-day climate change denier is just a stooge for the big money makers.

You've been duped!

jock - much has been done in the US in the last decades. Look at how clean cars run. I remember when there was a blue haze coming out of every tailpipe of a car. We are working for a cleaner environment. But even with this, we have weathermen who can't predict the weather 3 days out. Yet, you believe Global Warming to be Gospel, despite the FACT the data has been omitted, and manipulated to support the Global Warming agenda. Our current weather may be totally caused by the Volcano that erupted last year. Yet no one on this thread has brought this up....

Should we go out and pollute and destroy all we can because the proof is not solid? No Should we continue to improve the way we use the planet. Yes. But here is a better question.....Should we look at the Man-made changes to control water on the planet and the impact these changes have had on the environment. ABSOLUTELY.....We have tried to control water, and it has had a negative impact on the environment in those ares, and some errantly blame that on Global warming, when that has nothing to do with it. (Examples, diverting river water for irrigation and tap water. The use of Levees to keep water that would normally go onto a floodplain.) The picture has not fully been explained, yet another reason why this shouldn't be taught as fact.

krohleder... you logic is infallible. Guilty until even though there is absolutely NO proof. Where you part of the "intelligence" gathering on WMDs in Iraq?

When science is outlawed, only outlaws will have science...

@Romney, Your moniker is childish and climate change is a theory.

And next year we can replace the word Global Warming with Cigarette!

If funding by large entities is suspect of producing biased results, consider the US Government support and funding of pro-global warming material and reports. If you are a biologist or climatologist, most would be out of work, sitting on beaches counting whatever, without results supporting the theory.

The public has mellowed under all the scare and disaster scenarios. Might be about time schools taught about questioning pop science. There are plenty of "skeptic" questions to answer. A good exercise for kids to learn to evaluate both sides of something before taking sides. If the AGW theory can't answer the questions, then it isn't much of a scientific theory.

Take for instance the claims that hurricanes and tornadoes are more prevalent and worse now. There are plenty of stats that show that claim just isn't true. A good exercise of collecting the data and testing the claim. Wouldn't that be a meaningful thing to learn in school?

Jeff:

Except correlation does not imply causation. Just because CO2 is increasing it doesnt mean that's what causing global temperature increases. I've yet to hear conclusive evidence that it's CO2 and not solar radiation that's causing temperature increases. Nor have I heard a rational explanation for the decline of global temperatures from the 1920's until the 1990s. If CO2 was the deterministic force of warming, then the temperatures should have risen steadily in that time period.

Except that if you look at the records for global temperatures, solar output, and CO2 levels, temperatures correlated fairly well with solar radiation for much of the 20th century. It's only in the last few decades that CO2 has replaced solar variability as the primary driver of global temperatures.

And since the greenhouse effect of CO2 is a well-established scientific fact, please explain how an increase in global CO2 would NOT lead to an increase in global temperatures?

LOL @ willowbrook. Their is no conspiracy taking place by climate scientists. If you talking about the GM-gate it has been determined to be a smear campaign by GM deniers. Unless your a scientist and can present your findings to the 97% of scientists that work in that field your just talking $@&t.

Andy-534371 - THANK YOU! Whether or not you choose to believe in climate change or "global warming" does NOT mean that recycling and reducing pollution aren't beneficial and positive goals.

Read Michael Crichton's "State of Fear." (Never will you see so many footnotes and references in a fictional novel.) In that book, even the protagonist doesn't believe in "global warming" per se but they sure as hell believe that pollution and the excessive exploitation of our global resources is a highly dangerous path to take.

Sure, glaciers melt and grow all the time, arguments can be made that this is simply a warming trend that is not out of the ordinary for our planet's history. Sure, new species appear, and other species go extinct all the time also, and arguments can also be made that this is simply nature. But you cannot reasonably argue that our excesses are not causing harm, both to ourselves and our ecosystem. The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. The fact is, we simply do not know enough about climate and the global environment to make any infallible conclusions, and almost every time we have thought we know better than nature, we have made matters worse. Do we really want to let our egos destroy us?

Ask yourself this - is there ANY negative side to reducing pollution and the exploitation of our planet's resources?

And ask yourself another question - do you really want to take the word of corporations that are profiting from those actions?

@ Greg

I never said there was a consipracy, I only stated what had been written in a number of articles by a variety of sources. I do believe these scientists have an agenda, most likely one that keeps them in grant money to pay their way through life.......

(“whether CO2 is a pollutant is controversial. It is the global food supply and natural emissions are 20 times higher than human emissions”).

as humans, we are still responsible for those global food supply emissions.

do you think the cows and pigs and chickens are multiplying like mad, and stacking themselves up in factory farms in heinous conditions all on their own?

But ultimately the question of whether it's man causing this, or just part of the ebb and flow of this planet...isnt really the MAIN point.

The earth is warming, and things will change...and there's absolutely no reason why we shouldnt be preparing for that.

Part of that preparation is diversifying our energy sources...preparing for a future where oil is to rich to keep nations humming along...preparing for a future where the cancer rate is simply to high to keep burning and spewing hazardous chemicals and pollutants...preparing for a future where food is in short supply, and having creative/innovative ways to meet those challenges.

The Question becomes - why are we letting the Koch Brothers and other folks dictate to us what direction we go in, merely because it MIGHT leave them in the dust?

None of here have to care about whether our new future leaves the Koch Brothers without a role...only the Koch Brothers have to care about that, and that is why they are fighting evolution and progress tooth and nail.

You have to ask yourself...should mankind be unable to evolve, grow and diversify simply because a bunch of rich industry dictators have the ability to propaganda us out of doing whats in OUR (read not theirs) best interest?

We are human, we are innovative, and we are amazing...when we arent held back by people who stand to lose most.

common sense is an oxymoron... Oh good, the GW discussion that proves the point about teaching students to question stuff and how to go about that - I think they call it critical thinking.

Consider that the even the IPCC states that before about 1980, the increases in global CO2 do not explain whatever climate changes are there. CO2 is a trace gas (about 380 parts per million) and is climbing rapidly. But, the temperature has not been responding with growing increases. Looks like temperatures, according to the satellites has declined a bit. To explain this, they say that solar radiation is the driving cause. Seems a bit conflicting if CO2 has taken over the game.

Now this is just fun and games on this forum, but it could be useful to teach kids how to evaluate the claims of both sides. Something wrong with that?

"Ted, try a new line. Soros has NOTHING on the Koch Bros"

so the koch brothers have been convited of insider trading too?

@gary:

"3) Even if you convince me that the earth is warming and mankind is the cause, what should we do about it? Spend 100 trillion we don't have?"

And that's how we should handle war or buying poisoned food from china? Whether or not we should, we did, and if we know there's a problem we should deal with it. Any sane person knows whether it's us or mother nature, crazy stuff is going on lately. So a nation who spends billions in cold relief each year can't try to stop major catastrophe akin to the indonesia tsunami, the japan earthquake, the friggen tornadoes in friggen manhattan!? You're off your nut if your global warming denying message is "life sucks, NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH NYAH DEMOCRATS" and not trying to stop what we know to be worsening no matter WHAT its cause.

Is there any reason we cannot teach our children that there is not a consensus on global warming and to teach both sides of the issue? As a matter of fact, why can we not teach both intelligent design and natural design?

And can we have a discussion without all the name calling? Thanks You.

Man-made global warming is a theory. Teachers should teach it as theory, not as fact. Unfortunately, too many teachers presume their pupils are too stupid to understand the difference, and act as preachers, rather than critical-thinking coaches...

Common Sense: "And since the greenhouse effect of CO2 is a well-established scientific fact, please explain how an increase in global CO2 would NOT lead to an increase in global temperatures?"

Unfortunately, the "greenhouse effect" has effectively been debunked as a concept, which has fueled the deniers' side. The urban heat island effect - meaning that the more people you pack into a given area, using fuels, automobiles, heat, energy, all increases the temperature of that surrounding area, is a much more logical and accepted concept. Global temperatures haven't gone up consistently around the globe, they have increased in some areas, stayed the same in others, and even gone down in certain regions.

There is no catch-all answer to this question. It's not just CO2, or just overpopulation, or just pollutants and toxins, or just any one thing. Which only continues the controversy, sadly. It's a combination of all of it. We use too many chemicals, we eat too many toxins, we recycle too little and litter too much, we are too overpopulated, we use too much energy, we waste and waste and waste. All of it hurts our planet, but not necessarily (and unfortunately) in any such overt way that we can just point to it and go AHA! That's it! Fix that and we're good!

Which is why I asked the question - what possible negative side is there to reducing pollution and the exploitation of our resources. There are all sorts of potential benefits, and almost no negatives (except the ridiculous argument of how corporations can't create chemical-spouting, polluting, exploitative "jobs"). We kill ourselves to get to coal, we destroy ecosystems spilling oil, and for some reason there are millions of people that argue FOR this continuing.

Things that hurt us, hurt us. Things that could help us, might just help us. So what's the problem? Oh yeah, the bottom line.

Jeff-498218

Except correlation does not imply causation. Just because CO2 is increasing it doesnt mean that's what causing global temperature increases.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is why the temperatures on Venus are so astoundingly high. (Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2.)

Direct measurements show that the CO2 levels in earth's atmosphere have increased dramatically since we started dumping huge amounts of it into the atmosphere.

Given those indisputable facts, using the "correlation does not imply causation" argument to dispute anthropogenic climate change is like dumping deadly poison into someone's drink, noting that they don't seem to be feeling well after drinking it, and trying to exonerate yourself afterwards by saying that it's "just a correlation" -- even though the guy next to him died 10 minutes after drinking the same poison.

The climate change denial efforts are being funded by companies that have HUGE financial interests that would be harmed by efforts to curb CO2 emissions. Isn't it funny how the climate change deniers never seem to have a problem with that?

Gary 420... I am going to disprove your points one by one:

Point 1) According to NASA the decade ending in 2009 was the warmest on record. Provide link to for your point that "actual data differs from the models".
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2010/jan/HQ_10-017_Warmest_temps.html

Point 2) According to the NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES 97% of climate scientists believe anthro climate change is REAL.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.abstract
The ocean has become more acidic due to CO2 sequestration and water temp increases... corals are being bleached at an alarming rate.
http://www.marinebiology.org/coralbleaching.htm
Your example of "peeing in the ocean" is reminiscent of the belief that industrial waste (mercury, benzene, lead solutions etc.) can be poured into the ocean because it will dilute and become innocuous. You are absolutely WRONG: We now have to warn pregnant women to avoid tuna due to mercury levels.
Purdue, Exeter and University of California are ALL studying climate change. I guarantee that there are tenure track and tenured professors involved.

Point 3) You will believe what you want to believe and no one can ever change another's mind.
We either spend money on developing clean energy (solar, wind, geothermal, etc.) now or we spend money on covering the health issues, constantly increasing price of fossil fuels, degradation of food cultivation (your assertion that it will increase arable lands ignores the effect on the jet streams and consequently atmospheric water distribution), etc.

This is not, as you assert, an example of a group of people telling others what to do and how to do it but rather a situation that threatens our way/quality of life and that of our childrens and grandchildren.

What if you are wrong and we ignore this issue beyond the point of ever recovering from it? Do the short term conveniences outweigh the long-term risks?

JLS - Some of the things the government is trying to do, will hurt us. They have plans to reduce or eliminate hurricanes in the gulf by decreasing the temp. of the ocean. Most of the south gets a lot of their rainfall for crops from these weather patterns. If we start messing with it, It could cause more harm than good. We should not do something without knowing the consequences. A lot of your ideas are good solid ideas. I just do not think that the government needs to control it. Lets face it, whoever is in charge, they tend to muck things up a bit.

As for the topic posted here. I still do not understand why we cannot teach our kids both sides of the story.

@hardtostarboard

Republicans on average are more educated across the board than democrats.

If what you are saying is true, then Republicans are also less religious, more tolerant of other religions/ethnicities/sexual orientations and don't ever watch Fox News.

@Tom Gregg

As for the topic posted here. I still do not understand why we cannot teach our kids both sides of the story.

Because one side is based on scientific studies and other is based on political beliefs.

That reminds me, why can't we teach evolution in church?

willowbrook: You suspect the climate scientist's have an agenda of what? These people who spent years in school because they care about the environment, who could have just as easily become a corporate lawyer or wall street executive instead decide to go against all of the years of studying and scientific ethics classes relating to the importance of the scientific method and how it should be unimpeachable decided in mass (Well over 90%) to throw that all away to make a couple grand a month. Yes there was a couple bad apples who did very slightly massage a very small study (mainly for clarity's sake) and now you lump everyone else in with them?

But the Koch brothers with billions on the line don't have an agenda?

As with most all things in life, follow the money, he with most on the line is likely the problem.

Tom Gregg ... why can we not teach both intelligent design and natural design?

Certainly could. It is a POV that kids will eventually find out about. They have this Darwinian thing going, why not test that theory with questions? More than the dogma of either side, we hope to teach our children how to evaluate and question. If one side is so ridiculously wrong, it should be willing to stand up to some questions. But, that kind of honest learning will find few teachers able to do it, and the system based on multiple choice right/wrong is not able to evaluate it.

We do pay good lip service to teaching critical thinking though. Just not much going on in societies so rigid with PC and group think.

@ Gary 420 - I guess you don't understand the effect climate change would have on precipitation levels throughout the world. You're claim is that investing in green technology wouldn't save lives. However, climate change will intensify current weather patterns, leaving realatively dry areas essentially sterile due to a lack of rain (as well as areas with above average rainfall to become inundated). That'll cause mass starvation in populations throughout the world that already survive in marginal growing areas. Previously dependable sources of water would dry up, forcing people to drink more of the contaminated water you're talking about, leading to outbreaks of disease. It's entirely possible that as the resources we depend on are stressed and depleted, those without will try and take by force resources from those with. Needless to say, mass death will accompany these events.

So, although this may sound overly alarmist, climate change would be far more devastating (in terms of human lives alone) than malaria or HIV. You're claim is completely uninformed. If you don't agree, I suggest you look in to the impact climate change and it's impact on weather patterns/water availability already has had in Australia.

Gary420: "Eradicate Malaria $100 MILLION Lives saved 20 million per year"

And do you know why malaria became such a worldwide mass killer? Because we outlawed DDT - a chemical less harmful than any other pesticide, safe enough to EAT, but by the time we actually bothered to find out, we had in our arrogance created such a fervor over its supposed "harmful" nature, that it was already banned. Even once the ban was lifted, there was such a stigma attached to it that third-world countries would not use it because other countries like the US would not trade with them if they used DDT. As a result, the mosquito population exploded and the death rate from malaria has been out of control ever since. And now we spend $100 millions of dollars a year to prevent malaria-related deaths that didn't need to happen in the first place.

The fact is, we don't know enough, and never have, to have the arrogance and know-it-all attitudes that we do. We can't say that CO2 isn't harmful, or rising levels aren't harmful, or burning fossil fuels isn't harmful, because we simply don't know. Every time we think we know, we generally cause more harm than we think we're fixing. We think the population of wolves is out of control in one area, so we kill them off, only then the deer population explodes, which depletes the plant life, which kills off another organism that relies on that plant life, and on and on. Our arrogance only breeds more problems.

That being said, there is VERY little harm in recycling, reducing pollution, and exploring alternative energy sources that would not require the use of toxic chemicals (like fracking). Can you really make an argument that interfering less with nature is a bad thing?

Romney, Church is a private organization. Global warming is a theory. It is not a fact. They are just as many scientist that believe it is not true. I am advocating teaching both. Not one side or another. There should be nothing wrong with giving both arguments and letting the kids and their family make their own decisions.

Denying Global Warming is not just some Big Corporation thing, many real scientist have been coming out and denying or minimizing this bogus cause more and more lately. Global Warming is a theory that has been blasted for its huge holes, inaccuracy's, and lies. Just recently another scientist has surfaced to counter the false claims.

Fritz Vahrenholt, 62, who holds a doctorate in chemistry,His party, Germany's center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD), chose him as environment senator in the city-state of Hamburg, Now as the outgoing CEO of the renewable energy group RWE Innogy, he writes on the climate debate

"The climate catastropheis not occurring," he writes in his book "Die Kalte Sonne" (The Cold Sun), published by Hoffmann and Campe, which will be in bookstores next week.

Breaking Global Warming Taboos

'I Feel Duped on Climate Change'

The article originally appeared in German in issue 6/2012 (Feb. 06, 2012) of DER SPIEGEL.

I'm constantly surprised by how people think science is a partisan topic. We could spend all day arguing the merits or supposed inconsistencies with global warming but the fact stands that none of us are even remotely qualified (actually some are more remote than others) to give a knowledgeable assessment of the research. We already have an international community of experts who are qualified to do so, and the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is happening.

For those of you who do not trust the scientific community, can you name one example of the scientific community lying to the public strictly for political reasons. How about lying to the public ever?

If the internet were around 90 years ago, we could just as well be debating whether or not Quantum Theory is real. Just because we don't perceive these things in our daily life doesn't mean that it's not happening. The reality is that the people most qualified to address the question of global warming assert that it is happening.

MattinSeattle... These people who spent years in school because they care about the environment,

Probably so. But school and the workplace has a kind of Darwinian thing going where by those not buying the current view are weeded out. Pretty soon, all the profs and bosses think the same way. Maybe that's how it should be. I think a few iconoclasts should be present. Ask the Soviet Academy of Science what political correctness did to them in agriculture and biology. Or maybe the Catholics about Earth centered. Held as absolutely irrefutable by all those in the know.

Interesting that MSNBC changed the article's headline from this morning. I can't imagine why we would not want our children to think critically and be skeptical of "experts".

Another item that should be required reading for children and the anti science global warming crowd: " The Emperor That Wore No Clothes".

I find it curious that so many will so willingly give up so much freedom for an idea with so little proof behind it.

Look at what climate change did to Greenland! It was nice and well...green and then we had Global cooling and now it isn't green anymore. If we had the ability to change that back then should we have? Should we have stopped it from happening? I feel we are going through another one of these changes. If that means that Australia becomes drier, that does not mean that we caused it. That is the cycle.

Noah, You wanted just one example here is a report that asked scientist to resign for leaving out data to make it seem worse than it is. Just google these words global warming scientists busted and count how many there are.

My question is, what's the point of this. You could say, 'follow the money'. But, if you look at the donars listed, Phillip-Morris, RJR, MS... Why should they care about teaching climate change denial other than the political ideology of the leadership making those funding decisions. It's strange why anyone would want to teach a, let's all destroy the earth doctrine. Even if anthropogenic causes for climate change are only partially true (personally, I do not believe this), why would we carry on with this risky course. We have much more to gain on many fronts by embracing a challenge to find alternative energy and new technologies. We should leave the dinosaur industries in the past if they can not adapt, To paraphrase Peter Drucker, ' starve the products of yesterday, milk the products of today, and feed the products of tomorrow...' This applies to industries as well as businesses.

This is just good public policy. It seems that if the GOP was indeed focused on laissez-faire market principles they would embrace this as an engine for economic growth. But, the fact is they're not.

In any case, political and religous ideology have no place in the teaching of our children. The standard for science and mathmetics should be to teach the current state of the art in terms of scientific theory. Theory in this use means a set of hypotheses validated by peer replicated experimental objective data. In other words, more than just someone's opinion.

I always thought the names of Greenland and Iceland got reversed. But they were named during the Medieval Warm period.

And it is quite clear WE (humans) are not able to stop it, even if it did exist -nor should we. Given the Global Indifference out there, we better work on adapting if anything. Besides, the next Ice Age is due any time now. Maybe they will cancel each other out. LOL

Grinspoon97 - Fair enough of an argument, but the problem with it is the Climate scientists have been well trained to follow the scientific method, which is probably the most objective method of critical thinking created. Those groups you cited were under extreme pressures of torture and death to agree with there political masters. While it's still a possibility, it's highly unlikely they're suffering from Group Think.

Now the Deniers, a much better case can be made for them. One of association bias. Rush Limbaugh told me Obama wants to take my guns and I believe him, he also told me those scientists were lying to steal our money, so he's gotta be right about that too.

Locke, I agree with you. I just feel the government does not need to mandate it. It should be up to the individual to decide what is right for them. If someone wants to drink water from a water bottle and waste the plastic, that is up to them. If want to believe or not believe in global warming, that should be up to them. Lets the teachers give both sides of the story and let the children discuss it with there parents.

First there were Holocaust deniers, now we have Climate Change deniers. When will people ever learn to just blindly accept popular opinion?

@ Tom Gregg - You're ridiculous. Show me proof of this mass exodus of scientist who now believe climate change doesn't exist... this is the same ridiculous claim that Rick Perry tried to make (and which Rush Limbaugh lauded him for), without actual backup. One person above provided a link for one chemist who thinks climate change is a hoax - big freakin deal! Even if you can find 100 "scientists" in the entire scientific community who changed their minds, you'd be looking at 96.9% of scientists who believe man-driven climate change is reality rather than the 97% that currently do. Until you're looking at a significant change (30% or more), it's a fallicy to claim tons of scientists are departing from their belief that climate change is driven by man.

Greenland received it's name by vikings who wanted to attract settlers there - THAT was a hoax.

This planet has never seen the rate of average temp increase that we are seeing today throughout the time for which we can measure historical climate data. Yes, temps and weather have fluctuated throughout time, but even in historical times of heating up, Earth has never changed as rapidly as it currently is. That rapid change correlates with the explosion in the human population and the burning of fossil fuels. Can you show a correlation that this is just part of our normal cyclical climate variations? I highly doubt it...

MattinSeattle... Climate scientists have been well trained to follow the scientific method, which is probably the most objective method of critical thinking created

I only wish that were true. That's my point here. We should do a much better job of teaching Critical Thinking. School, at all levels, is pretty much figuring out the teacher and parroting. The workplace is about giving your boss what he wants. School is meant to prepare you for that workplace. The student thinking outside the box will get poor grades and eventually not advance.

A good example in GW is Spencer and the satellites. Some really good thinking and analysis. Driven out and maligned at every turn.

I find some of the posts in this thread amusing, yet quite sad. Those who say Global Warming is a THEORY are correct and at this time it should only be taught as a THEORY. Had many of the rest of you submitted papers at the college level with the comments you've made here, you would have received an "F" due to using theory as fact, without supporting evidence. My collapsed post acknowledged the Global Warming situation as it now exists, yet I'm collapsed. I'm still waiting for the truth to be discovered. Do I use the lack of evidence as an excuse to not do my part? No. As a person who grew up on the farm, I'm probably more in touch with the environment than most of you. Good choices need to be made, not reactionary obsessive behavior. And no stupidity like "carbon credits." That shell game has made Al Gore very rich, did it help the environment? Not a bit.

What exactly is wrong with teaching students that "the topic of climate change is controversial and uncertain"? It is certainly BOTH of these things right now.

The theory of evolution is still a theory, and it's FAR from certain that one species evolved into another, etc. Darwin himself spent much (if not most) of his writings talking about the problems with evolution. No one has yet shown me how this "primordial soup" I keep hearing about somehow sprang to life. As for man, we can't create a single living cell yet.

The "Big Bang" theory is still a theory, and no one has yet to explain what existed the day before the big bang, or what set it in motion.

The bottom line is, we humans have a LOT of theories that we seem to want to rush to proclaim as absolute facts, to the point where anyone who disagrees is ridiculed. REAL science would invite skepticism and opposing points of view until things are settled. Science in the 21st century seems more driven by politics and money, though, than by the pure scientific desire to know things. It's all about money and power.

@hardtostarboard - how about a psychological study to prove that lower intelligence is directly linked to social conservatism, racism and bigotry? Psychological Science published an article about a study that found low IQ can be correlated to "prejudiced beliefs and socially conservatives politics".

We take the time to verify what we post before we do so . . . .maybe you should do the same. And please don't post a reference to a Glenn Beck/Sean Hannity/Bill O'Lielly quote - right wing "news" pundits cannot be considered as authorities on Psychology.

and the consensus in the scientific community is that global warming is happening.

There is NO SUCH consensus!! All those who agree are given a voice and those who disagree are silenced so it seems most agree. Scientist who have disagreed have been attacked and had their careers ruined for going against the Global Claim.

First there were Holocaust deniers, now we have Climate Change deniers. When will people ever learn to just blindly accept popular opinion?

This is absurd, there are personal accounts, pictures, and records of the Holocaust. Global Warming is a theory that has made many predictions and almost all of them have been wrong.

But does that mean we should start ignoring the benefits of living in a green, eco-friendly enviroment?

Hint: NO.

So you are ok with your kids being lied to as long as it is for a good cause??

I see several of the coments here are from the same bunch that said that the scientists who munipulated data to show show suuport for warming were justified.

there is just as much data that i can find shows it is natural and then there is the fact that the temperature drops around the world like this year, but that is also do to global warming.

so what is wrong with teaching the fact and letting people decide what is real and what is a theory.

watch Ben Stein's video "Expelled" some time about how the left treats scientists who do not support or agree to the miss-information.

Show me proof of this mass exodus of scientist who now believe climate change doesn't exist...

Global Warming Petition Project - petitionproject.org has over 30,000 signatures of scientist.

22,000 Scientists Disagree With UN Global Warming Push

Analyzing Global-warming Science

By: William F. Jasper

February 18, 2008

http://inpursuitofhappiness.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/22000-scientists-disagree-with-un-global-warming-push/

Here's the problem with Spencer, he's politically aligned with the Republicans. He also believes in Intelligent design and is a regular on Rush Limbaugh as the token scientist. Even with all that, he still isn't a denier, he describes himself as an optimist. He's presented some data that calls into question some of the results of others and that data is being tested against as we speak, which is what the scientific method is supposed to do, that's the process working.

Regardless of any of this, here's my position. We don't know enough to know one way or the other for sure. I believe the 97% of climate scientists know what they're talking about and are testing it to be sure. In the meantime we should be doing everything we can to improve our environment and design and install clean, renewable energy sources, both for the political advantage of energy independence and a healthier workforce, and for future generations to have a better, cleaner and healthier future. Siding with the deniers will at best slow down all those advantages and at worst, kill off the human race and earth as we know it.

Global Warming should not be taught or debated in Elementary School or Middle School. High Schools can spend some time debating the issue but should focus on it in anyway. Colleges can do whatever they want, but I wouldn't pay those high college cost for any of my kids to go and learn about Junk Science.

willowbrook... My collapsed post acknowledged the Global Warming situation as it now exists

Yes, I found it commented on the article here, did not name call or attack. I am not sure what the critera for collapsing is and who does it. Anyone know the policy?

the fact that we (non scientist) civilians have twisted this into a political issue is absurd. if 97% of nutritionists had a concensus that mcdonalds french fries are less healthy for you than an apple, would you deny it? debate it? claim that it's an unproven theory?

I love how all those who support Global Warming can just say it is fact that MOST agree on, when in truth MOST don't agree with Global Warming, and MOST of the facts / predictions have been refuted.

What happened to the RepubliCons to make them turn into such paranoid, overly-emotional thinkers? Was it 9/11? It scared them so much that they are having to spend the rest of their lives acting out paranoia and anger while corporate political manipulators use them for their own gain. If the USA was turned into the Xtian equivalent of Iran, they still wouldn't be happy - they would start eating themselves! If someone announced that the sky is blue, they would raise a stink to say it was green while personally attacking the ones who announced that it was blue! They act like spoiled bullies.

Logic, the Oregon Petittion Project has been dbunked so many different ways it is embarrassing. There aren't 30,000 climate scientists in the world, and the majority of real climate scientists are quite confident in AGW. You can't believe things are "junk science" just because you don't want them to be true.

97% of scientists believe this. sorry, but this is a fact.

dummy.

And a pet peeve... You deniers love to toss around "Theory" but a scientific theory is more fact than guess. It's the Theory of Gravity. Should we just not teach that, because it's a theory? Or should we also teach that Gravity is God holding us down so we don't bump our heads?

seriously, why don't you guys stop digging your heals in the sand and eat crow. you'll look foolish one day, for denying something that there is ovewhelming consensus on.

this guy did:

see, this is what grownups do. they can admit when they are wrong, this inability to accept defeat is really sad.

can you not paste a link? it keeps omitting it. odd.

MattinSeattle... . In the meantime we should be doing everything we can to improve our environment and design and install clean, renewable energy sources, both for the political advantage of energy independence and a healthier workforce, and for future generations to have a better, cleaner and healthier future. Siding with the deniers will at best slow down

You figure it is no harm to act as if there is Global Warming until it is dis-proven? The threat from the meteor, the Yellowstone supereruption, the plague, nuclear war... Those are much more certain and have greater impact on humanity. They will happen and the climate won't make a difference.

How about the good old USA spending a bit on satellites to get the proof one way or the other. We currently have no plans for new ones. The old ones (which are now failing) show the climate models, which are the source of those dire predictions, are being shown WRONG. The predictions about heat transfer in the atmosphere are wrong and the claims of those predictions are likewise wrong.

While we spend billons on worthless wind energy development, couldn't we afford a few bucks to see if the knee-jerk energy development was necessary. I see Germany is backing off solar. It is funny though that two nuke green energy plants were approved. I doubt that is the direction many greens wanted to go.

MattinSeattle:

Fact - the Earth has been warming since the last Ice Age.

Theory - recent warming has been attributable to man's actions.

Fact - Mass is attracted to other mass.

Theory - The force of attraction (gravity) is related to Electro-magnetic force.

Do you not see the difference?

Yes, lets wait and see until the patient is so far gone that nothing can bring him back. The problem here is a compounding problem. The longer we spend debating it the worse it gets and the more likely it is that we'll destroy ourselves. I agree that we should continue testing, but we should be doing something about it right alongside that. And Germany is a poor example, of course they cut back green spending, they just went conservative. And ask the Japanese about Nuclear Reactors.

The course study will fit in perfectly with the study material and related course: THE EARTH IS FLAT!

seriously, why don't you guys stop digging your heals in the sand and eat crow. you'll look foolish one day, for denying something that there is ovewhelming consensus on

NOTHING and I mean NOTHING that these idiots have said has came even close to being true. Every prediction, every measurement has turned out to be $h!t! You continue to believe what everyting they say, but every year that goes by shows us just how wrong their prediction were.

Logic, the Oregon Petittion Project has been dbunked so many different ways it is embarrassing. There aren't 30,000 climate scientists in the world, and the majority of real climate scientists are quite confident in AGW. You can't believe things are "junk science" just because you don't want them to be true.

First of all I think the Oregon Petition project is different then the one I was talking about but anyway the one I mentioned It is not Debunked.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

So yes, the 30,000 signatures are from all types of sciences and a small number are climatologist, but there are still many who disagree.

The course study will fit in perfectly with the study material and related course: THE EARTH IS FLAT!

You know at one time 97% of scientist believed the earth was flat, so was it true then?

America has done a great job eliminating emissions, now that most of our Manufacturing has gone overseas to places with no OSHA requirements and no EPA, I'm sure those jobs are much cleaner in China then they were here.

I'm all for wind power and solar energy, just yesterday i filled my car up with air and sunlight. It didn't go anywhere because it was out of gas, but I filled it up anyway.

Gary420... "...so many will so willingly give up so much freedom" what freedoms are people giving up? If "freedom" were a person he/she would probably punch you in the mouth for using them in your baseless argument.

By the way I debunked your "point 1/2/3" argument... have no reply? When faced with facts you "anti-science" people don't have ANY reply.

I think it more interesting that 97% of the scientists thought Continental Drift was wrong and just silly that continents moved around. I remember being after school one day in the 5th grade and talking about the world map - how Africa and South America seemed to fit. The teacher came over and said in a low voice, "I am not supposed to tell you this but there is this theory that they were once together."

I never trusted the 97% again. Past clamps on science were religious. The origin of GW is political, not scientific. Warmists, please feel free to fund all the green energy you want, just don't make me pay for your mistake.

ok. you guys have convinced me.

oh mattinseattle,

you're so naive. just because the scientific community has said something, you choose to believe it. when logic, and grinspoon have clearly schooled you by using the scientists have been proven wrong before, so why trust them now? defense. also, logic pointed out some really arbitrary reference to how his standard combustion engine didn't refuel when exposed to wind and sunlight. i hope you've learned your lesson, debating out of your league.

Wow Tracey, Sarcasm! I've never experienced this argument style from a leftist before?

As long as most believe something it should be taught in schools. On a side note 92% of Americans believe in God. Public schools, here comes God back into the class room.

Ninety-two percent of Americans would answer “yes” to the question, “Do you believe in God?” according to a recent Gallup poll. That number is down just four points from the 96 percent of Americans who answered in the affirmative back in 1944, when Gallup first queried the nation on the issue.

I should admit only 2% of climatologist believe in God, so maybe it's only their opinions and theory's we should all rule our lives by.

Sarcasm? No, we should just accept victory gracefully. It was a polite concession.

Speaking as an Earth Sciences teacher of 10 years at the 9th and 11th grade levels, prepackaged curricula should be considered suspect right off the bat. They are usually designed to push an agenda and usually fall short of meeting a state's educational standards and objectives for (in this case say) Earth and Space Science.

Any district and school should (and I would hope) prefer to have their teachers write their own curricula. Any science teacher worth his/her salt would be able to put together a heck of a unit on Climate Change using data from both sides of the issue and through the analysis of data have the students draw their own conclusions AND THEN justifiy their conclusion (depending on grade level).

you should consider changing your name, it doesn't fit.

if you want to continue to live in the world of false equivalencies, I give up trying to convince you to consider anything else. Your attempt at equivocating peoples belief in god to scientists belief in manmade climate change is nonsense. The debate is about a scientific theory in science class. Feel free to teach about god……. in church……or Sunday school.

Rick Sanatorum's daughter got sick and he got treatment for her from a doctor. Why didn't he "pray away" the illness or accept the illness as god's will?

Because, like most Christians, Rick doesn't REALLY believe James 5:15 (among other passages).

Yep... tons of prayer going on in hospital waiting rooms, but very few skip the hospital bit. Guess they figure God needs all the help he can get.

The debate is about a scientific theory in science class.

Yes, and you want them to teach the "theory" as fact. Teach it as theory and give opposingviews and I have no problems with it being in the classroom. Teach as Gospel never to be questioned and you might as well teach it and your own science worshipping church. If we never questioned science theory where would we be? Still flat at the center of the universe.

I see all these references to consensus of scientists or that 97% of all scientists agree. The point is that the scientific method is not based on consensus and it certainly is not a democratic process. It simply starts with an hypothesis(or hypotheses) that attempt to describe a reason for an observation in nature and makes a prediction that a cause will result in the effect predicatebly. A scientific theory describes the best possible explanation for observed reality after the underlying hypotheses have been empirically validated. Theories can be overturned if better models that explain reality become established i.e. Flat earth model or pre-plate tectonic model of geology. Although, Flat Earth was never really a theory. It was based more on religous dogma and myth.

The Anthropogenic (human caused) basis for climate change remains the best fit model for explaining the escalating rise of earths mean temperature dating roughly since the industrial revolution. Yes indeed the earth has had warm and cool periods. But, that was long before there were 6-7 Billion of us inhabiting the earth. During those prior periods many species became extinct and new ones arose to replace them. It's clear that the a hot earth will be able to sustain much less diversity in the short term and, probably, many fewer humans as well.

its funny that you think that i am the world is still flat guy.

seriously change your name!

Ok, read over the article, a lot of the documents, and the "exposing" website. Not quite sure what is so news worthy. It basically shows that the climate change deniers are involved in the exact same activities as the climate change supporters. Who knew - it's a political topic.

Nice try dieselbug, but republicans also have a higher IQ, so just as I suspected more liberals are racists and bigots.

your notion that they teach science as gospil is ridiculus, when i was in grade school the vast majority of the science curriculum was framed as theory.

I'VE GOT IT!!!! strawman! you should change your name to strawman! because come on! logic! lol!

@LogicRequired - 'opposing views' sounds good if you're in a courtroom operating under an advocacy principle. But, isn't really relevent in the discussion on climate change other than as social observations. There really aren't any serious scientifically validated alternative models to explain the high correlation between increasing mean earth temperature and increases in greenhouse gases such as atmospheric carbon caused by human activity. If there were I'd welcome them as emerging alternative hypotheses. Skepticism or 'critical thinking' is always healthy as long as it's grounded in some basis of fact. But, then the burden of proof falls to the skeptic to prove that they have a better model to explain observed reality.

@ willowbrook

But even with this, we have weathermen who can't predict the weather 3 days out.

I don't know of a weather man that can't predict with certain accuracy local weather 3 days out, but short term local predictions have nothing to do with GM. This ploy is used by GM dieners all the time.

I never said there was a consipracy, I only stated what had been written in a number of articles by a variety of sources.

Yes you did. Your implying that there is collusion (conspiracy) amongst 97% of the climate scientists to cook the data. This is absurd.

Yet, you believe Global Warming to be Gospel, despite the FACT the data has been omitted, and manipulated to support the Global Warming agenda.

What agenda? Is the science of earth climate going away. Will there be no need for it if we were not experiencing GM? Idiotic.

Our current weather may be totally caused by the Volcano that erupted last year. Yet no one on this thread has brought this up....

I guess since you don't have faith in science then it's up to willowbrook to save the day with something only he seems to have thought about. Dude I can go on with all of your post but I'm not going to waste my time. Anyone with half a brain can see how deeply ignorant you are of how scientific process works and GM in general.

I certainly hope we can finally put an end to science. Math is pretty much dead already and forget the humanities.

2009: Republicans accused Obama of attempted indoctrination of school children (Stay in school, kids!)

2012: Republican plan to distribute climate change indoctrination material to schools is exposed

Project much, Repubbies?

JLS399920, I am with you babe on DDT. The correct dosage of DDT can eradicate malaria for pennies per year per village. Yet rich ignorant Europeans will not allow it to be used, while millions of poor Africans die each year. SILENT SPRING by Rachel Carson has been thoroughly debunked by science. My guess would be that book written in 1964 was the start of the anti science environmental movement that consigns millions to death and poverty each year. The Global Warming hoax is just the latest version.

europeans aren't rich. haven't you heard, they're socialist job killers? you should get your talking points straight.

agree with gary about the DDT. also think about all the fires we could've prevented by not allowing asbestos? we should bring back abestos and lead paint. the scientific communities have clearly fabricated these dangers to kill jobs.

Liborcon, sorry I actually had work to do and could not respond

1).Here is the link to the temperature data. .http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming--Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html#ixzz1krybAlQx

For you to select 2009 as the hottest year measured proves my point. First, accurate temp measurements have only been around 150 years. It is really in the past 25 years that we have had all the weather stations, including stations in the ocean. The earth is billions of years old and has warmed and cooled countless times. Picking out 1 year and drawing a conclusion is ludicrous! The solutions you propose will destroy the world's economy and you draw a major conclusion based on one year!!!! Learn some science my friend!

2) Most Scientists work for universities or the government. Unfortunately, the name of the game in academia today is funding and grants. Fact: Tenure track academics simply cannot challenge the status quo and expect to be granted tenure. I am sure there are academics studying global warming, but not one is seeking to debunk conventional wisdom. Funding for politically incorrect studies challenging global warming does not exist on campus today where speech codes and political correctness are the order of the day. Read up on Harvard's Lawrence Summers ( a Clinton guy) and what happened to him when he dared to challenge established orthodoxy even though he was correct scientifically. So what 97% of scientists believe really proves nothing.

Your points about CO2 in the ocean are just as invalid as arguments about CO2 in the air.

I am not sure what mercury has to do with global warming except that Mercury levels are bound to increase because we are being forced to use Al Gore's CFL light bulbs, which contain dangerous amounts of mercury. Check out your landfills in about 25 years. Keep pregnant women away. Are you grasping yet how politicians actually make things worse?

3) People have been funding and researching solar, wind, and geothermal for 50 years! They are simply not sustainable or affordable on a large scale. Funny you did not mention nuclear, because it is not politically correct. Although expensive, nuclear is far cheaper than solar and wind and is scalable. Your ideas doom the poor! Coal and oil are used because they are plentiful and affordable.

Funny story and then I am done. Here is a link to a study about electic cars: http://www.climatechangedispatch.com/behind-the-science/7167-electric-cars-bad-for-environment

Because coal is a source for most of the power, electric cars are worse than gasoline cars! Oh the horrors. Our government wants us to buy 1 million electric cars, yet that will make pollution worse.

Do you see what happens when we just believe "scientists" and the government??? Keep an open mind and challenge conventional wisdom.

If you watch PBS you have seen how the Koch Bros. secretly slip in the global warming denial message very subtly. A lot of programs on PBS sre funded by "the David H Koch Foundation". He gets his brain washing message out and gets a tax deduction for doing it. That is why the GOP wants to defund PBS so Koch can control it even more!

you should take your own advice in regards to an open mind. it's absurd that someone arguing for the status quo, is preaching an open mind to people looking towards something different. YOU ARE THE CONVENTIONAL WISDOM!

solar wind and geothermal ARE used in large scales the reasons for there lack of pace, is the special interests of oil and coal, and political gridlock.

Tracey, you are the poster child of an anti science liberal. DDT in the correct does eradicates malaria and does not harm people or bird's eggs. Yet because of a 50 year old debunked book, millions of Africans per year die, when their deaths could easily be prevented. Sleep tight in your climate controlled home, while poor Africans die. This has nothing to do with lead paint or asbestos, but of course liberals paint everything with a broad brush.

I am all for wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear, oil, coal. Most broad minded people take an "all of the above" approach to energy. The FACTS are after 50 years, solar and wind are not widely affordable. They will likely add a couple of percent to our energy supply. Nothing wrong with that, but they will never come close to replacing coal or oil. Your comment about special interest of oil and coal is a typical liberal conspiracy theory that you pull out when the facts don't suit you.

Sean, nice name calling. Obviously you are a genius. Did you forget that the military is part of the US government? Colonels and Generals are the most political people on the planet! Of course they are going to parrot the party line.

These are the same generals that told Bush they needed more troops and the same generals that told Obama it was perfectly safe to leave Iraq. They figure out what the boss wants to hear, and they tell it to him!

Don't be so naive.

LogicRequired,

RE: your post #1.84

Nice Try, BUT it's BUNK, same as BS or myth. The ancient Greeks, around 500 BCE proved mathmatically that the earth was round. I doubt very seriouly they debated, especially in scientific circles, that the earth was flat BECAUSE their were no "scientists". This was BEFORE Scientific Method was formed, and I'm quite sure they did NOT do a survey and discover 97% thought the Earth flat. Still, nice try at passing BS off as fact!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_Flat_Earth

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20061023160854AAb7OSI

http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/questions/question54.html

Please do, cite YOUR sources for 97% of "scientists" claiming the Earth as Flat. LMFAO!

junico

CO2 is a greenhouse gas. This is why the temperatures on Venus are so astoundingly high. (Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2.)

Not exactly. There are a number of reasons Venus is hotter.

First venus is hotter because it is 2 x closer to the sun which means the heat striking it is 4 x the strength to us at earth.

Second the atmospheric pressure is 97 times that of earth. Higher pressure makes things a whole lot hotter - think earths core is molten rock.

Third - the properties of carbon are being severely distorted. Pro-AGW have inflated how much heat carbon holds. Did you know that carbon is used for fire protection. In high density, applications the heat is really slow to transfer through. What actually begins to happen is that more heat is actually repelled and never penetrates. Because of this property, Dense Carbon base finishes were the alternate to the fagile ceramic tiles on the Shuttles

Gary, I think there is more danger in NOT listening to scientists than in listening to tem, but you are right that people should be skeptical of everything. Unfortunately most people do not understand enough science to judge these things for themselves. If they did they would see that AGW makes sense and has good data to back it up. Not all scientists are liars.

DDT is an interesting if unrelated question. It does harm the environment, but it can also be useful in killing mosquitoes, at least until they evolve immunity. It would be an interesting debate that we will bever have because once again all sides or more interested in agenda.

didn't you just call me a "anti science liberal"? do i need to explain hypocrisy to you?

Bill Dedman, Investigator Reporter? You just can't make this stuff up...! Well, actually making it up is the new requirement circulum, along with teaching spin.

gary, do i need to point out to you that "liberals paint everything with a broad brush" is you painting with a broad brush? lol! why am i even arguing with you?!?! you're obviously a fool.

DB, part of the reason Venus is hotter is indeed because of the CO2 greenhouse effect, as well as the other things you mention. But the other examples you give are mostly carbon in different forms. We're talling about free CO2, not carbon compounds. We have known how much radiation free CO2 absorbs for over 100 years. And fire extinguishers work mostly by blocking out oxygen.

Hehe, "Denialgate."

The climate of the earth has been changing for billions of years and is expected to continue to change wheather man is on this planet or not. I think that man is causing CO2 levels to rise but there is not proof that it is causing global warming. The whole green house gas theory is just that, a theory. The way that a green house works has nothing to do with green house gases nor the green house gas theory. There is also other theory that does not require the green house gas theory to explain the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. For example, I have a heat transport system in my house that does not depend on the magical gas, CO2. The primary gas in that system is nitrogen that is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 Of course if you believe in the green house gas theory the primary green house gas is really H2O. Both sides of this issue claim scientific support. Personally I feel that there are many reasons to be conserving our use of fossil fuels and to be seeking alternatives, but global warming is not one of them even though I wish it were.

What I do not like is that climate change is becoming more of a religious issue. I understand the political ramifications but I really do not like the name calling. If you do not believe in one side of another you are labeled some sort of heretic. I wish that people would stop the name calling and stick to the science.

YouJustSaidWhat - Without a doubt, you are absolutely correct. I mean, seriously, how dare they even think about teaching both sides of the argument??! That might cause some people to to create informed opinions of their own! Oh, the travesty of it all!!! Don't they realize that we are all sheep that must be told exactly how to think, what to think and when to think it?

OK, that's enough sarcasm, for now...IDIOT!

Wow, this went on long after I gave up on it... Deniers will deny regardless of any evidence provided. So long as the Koch brothers can pay off some stooge to make up an experiment that's designed to disprove global warming, and Rush Limbaugh presents it as fact, these people will eat it up and say that scientist says your wrong, so you all must be wrong. Then out of the other side of there mouth they'll call into question any and all science, using painfully arcane examples with conditions so extremely outside of the present debate that it's utterly useless. I'm willing to bet a vast majority of these people would still deny if God made a personal, irrefutable appearance to the world and begged us to stop polluting.

Greg - you are a prime example of my last post, amusing, yet very, very sad in your lack of comprehension skills. I would say I feel bad for you, but I actually feel worse for the people who believe your comments.

The world’s greatest snow-capped peaks, which run in a chain from the Himalayas to Tian Shan on the border of China and Kyrgyzstan, have lost no ice over the last decade, new research shows.

The supposed ‘consensus’ on man-made global warming is facing an inconvenient challenge after the release of new temperature data showing the planet has not warmed for the past 15 years.

The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age to rival the 70-year temperature drop that saw frost fairs held on the Thames in the 17th Century.

In September, Nobel Prize-winning physicist Ivar Giaever, a supporter of President Obama in the last election, publicly resigned from the American Physical Society (APS) with a letter that begins: “I did not renew [my membership] because I cannot live with the [APS policy] statement

It's ok willowbrook. Your idiotic posts speak for themselves.

@ Logic - Interesting post 1.126 (had not heard this installment) ...can you give a link? I would like to read the entire article.

Yeah feed this nut job more bs. Instead of trying so hard to find more propaganda try debunking what I stated. If you try and learn you will find the truth.

Gary 420... If you bothered to read the NASA source you would have discovered that it was the decade ENDING in 2009 not just 2009. In addition, David Rose (the author of your linked article) is a hired gun of the oil industry. He is NOT a scientist so his assertions mean ZILCH. Notice how he uses non-committal terms such as "suggest" and how he does not say which "leading climate scientists". Find some scientific data to debunk NASA's scientific data.
Businesses, industry groups and of course government give academia GRANTS to do research. To call all grants given to academia skewed to prove an agenda is to truly not understand the rules of accepting grants.
Larry Summers? What does he have to do with climate change? Unless you mean the fact that he helped pave the way for an uber-industry friendly atmosphere to deregulate the financial industry (aka support for Gramm-leach-Blighley Act).
My point (I am beginning to seriously doubt your ability to read well) concerning dumping of toxins (aka mercury) into the OCEANS has come back to bite us in the arse. During the 50's, 60's and 70's industrial waste was routinely dumped into the ocean under the belief that it would be diluted by the sheer volume of salt water. Unfortunate that was not true... we now have to warn pregnant women to reduce tuna intake due to MERCURY levels within the flesh.
How does investing in solar, wind and geothermal doom the economy? Conventional wisdom and market economics dictates that new industry generate jobs (see China solar panel production numbers). The oil and gas industry no longer need the 4 BILLION in annual subsidies that we the taxpayer grant them. Instead the renewable energy industry needs these subsidies in order to become viable. Supplies of Oil and coal are FINITE and as the population grows the scarcity of these sources will drive the price up. Solar and wind energy technology's costs are becoming more and more competitive with oil (coal is still very cheap bu very dirty not too mention deadly to the miners). Notice that the cost of gas is increasing? Do you really think that we will see $2/gallon gas EVER again?

Game, Set, Match...

PS I am an engineer so your childish comment about "learn some science" is moot. I have forgotten more about natural sciences than you will EVER have a chance to learn.

Do your research. Ever heard of APCO Worldwide, TASSC(The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition), Exxon, Phillip Morris? APCO is a marketing firm specializing in the art of doubt. Hired by Phillip Morris to combat the negative image of tobacco. APCO wrote mission statements and helped start several "grassroots" organizations on behalf of Phillip Morris. Using this tactic, Phillip Morris could funnel money into a disinformation campaign casting doubt on whether tobacco is bad. One of the "grassroots" groups APCO started is TASSC. In addition to money from Phillip Morris, APCO encouraged all its pseudo-organizations(Heartland Institute) to "seek other sources of funding".

TASSC did. If found another partner in Exxon, and several oil companies. Their product, doubt that the science behind AGW(anthropogenic(thats manmade) global warming), is not conclusive. In almost every source on the web or in literature, that tries to dispute AGW, the source of research or funding is tied in some way to these quasi-science groups, these false "grassroots" organizations. TASSC being the predominant player. Once false data is on one website, it gets copied and cited to others, many source back eventually to junkscience.com, a TASSC(among others) funded site. All of this info is public data, a few simple web searches shows how verifiable this is.

A 2010 study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences -- the official publication of the United States National Academy of Sciences -- found that out of 1,372 climate researchers under review, approximately 97 to 98 percent of those actively publishing in the field said they believe human beings are causing climate change, which they term anthropogenic (i.e., man-made) climate change. It also concluded that "the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence" of the researchers unconvinced of man-made climate change are "substantially below that of the convinced researchers."

An earlier survey published in the 2009 issue of Eos -- a publication of the American Geophysical Union -- asked scientists from a wide range of disciplines (approximately 3,146): "Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?" Approximately 82 percent of the surveyed scientists answered yes to this question. Of those climate change specialists surveyed, 97.4 percent answered yes.

Excluding armchair climatologists, only including people, scientists, that actually know what they are talking about. There is more than consensus AGW is real.

Bait and switch is a fact of life here in the USA. Just get used to it. We are constantly lied to, and it has not angered too many yet, so why start now? The masses are dumb and clueless in many areas now, so why not one more? Sure there might not be any scientific evidence that would back up the climate change skeptics, but again, why does that matter?

This is a world where my opinion is always just as valid as yours, or you are being unfair. It does not matter if your opinion is based on years of research and my opinion was formed while getting out of bed this morning. They are two opinions, and as such, mine is just as valid.

So get off your high horse. You can quote facts and statistics all you want, but you assume that science, facts and studies have done anything good for us in the past. It is not like science has increased our lifespan or given us a higher quality of life, or anything like that. So even though my opinion is not based on "facts", that really should not matter now, should it?

Would that be the same local school boards that have dumbed down US public schools to the point where they are of no consequence in the global community? Those school boards?

Thank you Jeff-2785690 !

Unfortunately most of these posts indicate how many do not know how the scientific process works or how to think critically. I mostly see bad arguments using strawman, ad hominem fallacies, with distorted examples and uninspired conspiracy theories. It is not about the media or politics, most of which is reactionary watered down non sense; It is about science and reason. More importantly it is about the honest pursuit of truth.

It is not like science has increased our lifespan or given us a higher quality of life, or anything like that. So even though my opinion is not based on "facts", that really should not matter now, should it?

Hellohowareyou - you are a prime example of the ignorance that is affecting this country. The average life expectancy for a man in 1900 was 46.3 years. It was 48.3 years for a woman. Only one person in 25 lived to the age of 60 in 1900. Those numbers increased to 75.3 for males and 80.3 for females in 2008. The fact that life expectancies increased by close to 175% is totally a result of science, which has created superior medications, such as measles and polio vaccines, and medical procedures. I won't even begin to list the benefits to all mankind made possible through the space program because there isn't room in this forum. You would not have the computer on which you wrote your post without science, nor would you have the technology to drive a car with an internal combustion engine. You would not have a refrigerator for preserving your food. The debt that this world owes to science is endless. If you truly believe that mankind has not benefited through science, then you must live in a cave. I truly feel sorry for you.

Yes, you are entitled to your opinion. However, when it is an ignorant opinion that is not based in fact, it should not be used in any attempt to influence others.

What science? You mean the science where they admitted to faking data? There's a whole bunch of emails indicating the absolute fraud that was perpetrated. The climate changes on its own with very little help from man. That is absolutely indisputable. What is disputable is the non-sense scientists have done to keep funding their grants. If the issue is real just be men about it and report it correctly. Make the datasets public domain so that those of us that want to evaluate it can. Instead they publish hocky sticks and say look there's the proof. Sorry that proof didn't come true and now they alter their story, again and again. The glaciers are melting at X rate and then years later (just a few weeks ago) they publish how the estimates were WAY off. The ocean is rising, now we see it has but only 6 to 8 inches not the 4 to 8 feet they said it would. They promised that in 20 years manhattan will be under water, let me know if that happens. When it doesn't what are you going to say? So they were wrong again but that doesn't mean it isn't happening. How can you take them seriously when every prediction is off by literally orders of magnitude! If its real stop buffering the numbers to make the problem seem bigger than it is and be intellectually honest about it. Then and only then can we ever sit down and listen with an open mind.

I don't think that I'm being unreasonable with a simple request that they stop BS the numbers and start being honest.

Refrigeration and food handling far out weighted our advancements in medicine as to life spans. That's still science but don't give too much credit to our medical advancements. Right now the issue with medical advancements is that the Quality of Life isn't keeping up with the longevity. Praying for death while living isn't really a big advancement. Though there are some incredible advancements in cancer research right now that should prove to basically eliminate cancer as a cause of death in less than a decade. Of course who knows.. Those advancements might not come to be and even if they do they could cause other ailments.. We'll just have to see how it pans out.

my point is the big jumps came mostly from advances in food and machinery to produce food. Huge props to those inventors.

fat, dumb, and clueless!!

Yep! That pretty much sounds like the American agenda....and unfortunately they are wildly successful at it.

Refrigeration and food handling far out weighted our advancements in medicine as to life spans. That's still science but don't give too much credit to our medical advancements.

OK, Ted. If you think that the advancements in medicine since 1900 are insignificant, then move to a Third World country without first getting you vaccinations and see how well it goes for you. Do you really think that quality of life was better around 1900? People are living long, healthy lives nowadays. There comes a time when each of us might suffer during the final days of life, but through science, there are medications that can ease the suffering that were not available a century ago. It we could live to be 200 years old, I guarantee you that the last few days of life are not going to be any more peasant for most as our bodies shut down. Nothing can be done about that. It's part of dying.

There are plenty of scientific journals published from which you can get unbiased data. The problem is that you don't have the capacity to critically review the data and make valid conclusions. Your preconceived notions, which are not based in fact, color your interpretation of factual data.

ABCzyx: Though you claim that Hellohowareyou is ignorant, it is apparent that either you are ingorant of something called sarcasm or he/she is a complete idiot.

ABCzyx, I was being somewhat sarcastic. I appreciate your enthusiasm though. I do feel strongly though that as much as science and the scientific method help, they are lost on many of the people here. Scientific data can be skewed, if attention is not paid to make sure bias does not creep into the numbers.

So, if you do not agree with science, you can always dismiss it as biased lies paid for by people with an agenda. If you do agree with it, you can use the studies to back you up. Either way, people believe what they want to, and feel their opinions are equally or more valid than everyone else's, even if their opinion is not logical or based on anything but lies passed on by others. Logic, reason and science are fine if you use them, but show me for one minute how we do. Opinions based on years of dedicated research are easily dismissed by ideas people have as they are getting out of bed in the morning.

We do what we want, and we want what is convenient. I do not care if every scientist in the country came out and told us climate change was certain because of what we are doing, people will still deny it in large numbers.

I could tell you a number of scientifically and economically realistic ways in which we could increase energy production, improve the nutrition in agriculture, greatly reduce dependence on foreign oil, and improve our health care system, but even though this is based on verifiable facts, and it is based on solid research, who really would care enough to bother listening.

The status quo continues because 1. we like things staying the same, and 2. big well established businesses demand that it does. We might become greener, but even though we have a lot of tech to do it, no one wants it badly enough.

Ted,Ted,Ted, if you are going to debate using obsolete arguments like the "false data" invention, I recommend you update yourself on facts (I know that word must make you uncomfortable). The data you speak of has long since been re-checked and lo and behold, the earth climate is shifting. It is almost certainly being facilitated by man-made pollutants and behavior.

To argue that there is a slight possibility that it is not to some degree our fault or that it would be too expensive to fix is possibly the most self-centered and sociopathic argument possible. You do realize we are talking about the eventual end of life on earth, don't you? Just how many dollars is it worth to have your great-great grandchildren survive? If you don't care, fine...just say it...just say, "Let the earth rot, I won't be alive when it happens, so who cares?". At least you can be honest about it.

The scary thing about this article is that this represents Big Business' attempt to infiltrate our schools. Directly subjecting children to misinformation. They've done some despicable things before, but this is crossing a line.

You guys should look at different countries versions of TIMES magazines compared to the American version. It is almost hilarious but very disturbing, the other countries cover pages are about real issues and Americas cover pages are silly and child like.

Oh Toasty, really, and Al Gore has no financial interest in his own propaganda? Talk about crossing a line.

The climate of the earth has been changing for billions of years and is expected to continue to change wheather man is on this planet or not. I think that man is causing CO2 levels to rise but there is not proof that it is causing global warming. The whole green house gas theory is just that, a theory. The way that a green house works has nothing to do with green house gases nor the green house gas theory. There is also other theory that does not require the green house gas theory to explain the thermodynamics of the atmosphere. For example, I have a heat transport system in my house that does not depend on the magical gas, CO2. The primary gas in that system is nitrogen that is far more prevalent in the atmosphere than CO2 Of course if you believe in the green house gas theory the primary green house gas is really H2O. Both sides of this issue claim scientific support. Personally I feel that there are many reasons to be conserving our use of fossil fuels and to be seeking alternatives, but global warming is not one of them even though I wish it were.

What I do not like is that climate change is becoming more of a religious issue. I understand the political ramifications but I really do not like the name calling. If you do not believe in one side of another you are labeled some sort of heretic. I wish that people would stop the name calling and stick to the science.

Uh, PC? Gore used this mysterious devil-sorcery called "science."

Just a simple question for all the global warming supporters: If there is in fact man-made global warming, then why is there so much reluctance to use real statistics and have the so-called studies that prove global warming completely open for public review? The University of East Angelina scandal should never have happened if everyone was being up front about things. Why is there such a fear that the so-called facts will be misinterpreted rather than the attitude that the truth shall prevail? I mean, seriously, just put the real data out there for everyone to examine. If it supports the warming alarmists conclusions, then it does. If it doesn't, then it doesn't. But, please, whatever the supporters do, please use real data. I'm not interested in computer models. As they say, garbage in, garbage out. Just present the facts. Only then can people decide what is real. But, until the facts are put out there, one can only rationally assume that something is being hidden. That is, that the conclusions that the global warming scarists are hiding something! As in, what they have been paid to observe doesn't support the conclusions they are paid to support.

Another problem is the time span for collecting true temperature data has not been nearly long enough to determine weather perceived climate change is entirely natural or at least in part is caused by man. I think that land use may have some effect on local climate change but I doubt that human caused CO2 emissions do. A lot of the computer models really beg the question. The computer outputs what it is programed to. There have been so many different models with such different output as to render them virtually useless.

Will: No amount of time is long enough to determine if climate change is entirely natural or at least in part is caused by man. That is why the prediction of anthropogenic climate change is not based on the temperature record. It is based on the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Whether or not we can see its effects already is a different question. It looks like we can, but arguing against that will not change theoverall conclusion.

"There have been so many different models with such different output as to render them virtually useless."

No there haven't. There are many models, yes, and they all point to anthropogenic global warming.

witchrunner: "I'm not interested in computer models."

Then you aren't interested in science. We can't understand any system enough to predcit its behavior without models. Period. Saying "models could be wrong" is both obvious and empty. All models are wrong. But many are useful and some are necessary. And the climate models are becoming increasingly sophisticated.

toadsty

Big business infiltration?

What about govt infiltration? the fraud and rewriting of our history..

I'd like to see more about the role of dems in suppressing black rights..being black history month.

Now that would be a breakthrough.

RP-2387990: Ron Paul (Libertarian-Republican) was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations. He once remarked: "The Civil Rights Act of 1964 not only violated the Constitution and reduced individual liberty; it also failed to achieve its stated goals of promoting racial harmony and a color-blind society". Paul opposes affirmative action.

Not the only Candidate who has stated the same.

PS: The prime anti's in the Democratic Party was the sect known as Southern Democrats who bolted their Party for the Republican Party back in the 50's, and those Democrats who felt the same way in the 60's along with many from the KKK, the White Supremest Party, the Neo-Nazi Party, and the Neo-Facist Party.

Jock, the green house gas theory is just a theory and it is in doubt. Even if you believe it, the primary green house gas in H2O which most agree that man has no control of. H2O is the big weather maker on this planet. There is so much of it where I live that it often condenses out of the atmosphere as a liquid. The city has an underground network of pipes that chanel this liquid to a dumping ground just outside the city limits. The pool of liquid green house gas is enormous and the projected cost to clean it up enormous. The majority of CO2 in the atmosphere is of natural origin. There is data that tends to show that warmer temperatures cause CO2 levels in the atmosphere, not the other way around. There is science that supports the idea that man is causing climate change and there is science that supports the idea that man has had no significant effect on climate change. Either way there is no real proof. It is often hard to find the truth in this area with all of the name calling that is going on.

They fund a think tank which does a lot more than deny global warming. They may not have know of this at all. Now that they I hope to see their funding stop IMMEDIATELY.

LMAO. Micro$oft knows darn well what is going on. It's all about money. If pollution is brought under control it will cost Micro$oft millions.

Microsoft as well as most of these other groups are using Eugenic programs in Africa and other less than desirable areas of the planet. De-populatization and the implement of United Nations Agenda 21, which all these members of the "ThinkTanks" are in favor of. Their kind survives, my kind not so lucky.

How about Chevron? They, as well as others in the industry of oil, see the writing on the wall, and have out of good conscience, or necessity perhaps, conceded to the truth about human caused global warming. Don't believe me see for yourself from their own website:

http://www.chevron.com/globalissues/climatechange/

What a crock. You actually believe this drivel. Microsoft is one of the leading companies that contribute money to fight this global warming idea. This article became a complete farce when I read this. This is typical drivel fed to MSNBC by some far left "news" machine. MSNBC and most of the commenters here are clueless that they are being duped. Science is about challenging a theory, to NOT include challenging AGW in the classroom seems to be more of a story than to blindly follow it.

If we are going to present the "other side" of global warming, why don't we also present the "other side" on the health effects of cigarettes (i. their safe). Let the kids decide.

This science is settled. Just like the link between smoking and cancer.

Bill Gates is pouring millions into research on geoengineering the planet to combat global warming.

And it's no surprise seeing Fred Singer's name on this propaganda list. He conducted pseudoscience for years arguing that smoking wasn't hazardous.

"The science is settled"? Very diplomatic of you. Did you take that line from the Pope Urban's letter to Gallileo?

Here's the real story on the Microsoft donations. It took 10 seconds and Google to clarify

Microsoft gave the institute $59,908 in 2011, but said the money was earmarked for a program providing free software licenses to non-profit organizations. GlaxoSmithKline said its $50,000, two-year donation was for a healthcare initiative.

Still, in light of additional proof of the money and dishonesty on the side of the denial industry, you still ignore science and slander scientists.

tedcrawford

When you "follow the money" concerning this topic it is clear that the mis-information campaign from the Koch Brothers and other energy sources is designed to further their own economic interest, which is continued utilization of fossil fuels without emission restrictions.

What is the problem with teaching both possiblities, we should provide all of views on global warming as well as any subject that continually gets hyped as political agenda. Afterall, the topic makes an excellent venture into the development and support of an argument.

@Don97524...you forgot to add something to your follow the money trail though.....Al Gore and his clan make more money off pushing the AGW theory than the oil companies make in fighting it.....or did you intentionally leave that little detail off?

What of the money and dishonesty on the side of the AGW promoters? Do you honestly believe that their intentions are lily white, jock? It's patently absurd to think so.

Don87....

That is a foolish statement. Nobody makes more money than energy companies.

Al Gore donated his entire Nobel award of over $1 million to charity.

Scientists make their reputations by being correct; corporations make their reputations by making money.

Slightly Dusty - both sides of any aisle are against your idea. How dare you encourage students to study and research and arrive at conclusions? Students are to be spoon fed propaganda and told what to believe, regardless of the quality of the proof behind it.

Funniest thing I read today: "(AGW) is settled science. Just like the link between smoking and cancer."

It isn't about money it is about logic and total fabrication on the part of scientists!! We know they did, they admitted it, it's been leaked, thousands of emails depicting straight out lying. The truth is worth knowing but instead of saying the oceans will rise to 4 to 8 feet by 2010 and we find that in fact they have only risen 4 to 8 inches... Well how in the heck can you take them seriously?

If you want people to actually believe you have to be accurate and stop screwing around.

Ted

If you wish to base an argument on "logic" you must begin with facts. The conventional wisdom of climate scientists NEVER predicted anything like a 4 to 8 foot sea level rise by 2010. You are the sad victim of the right wing media which, unfortunately, makes you a dupe in their misinformation campaign and by spreading the misinformation you are a water carrier for anti-science.

hmmmm..... 97% of scientists vs. Tedcrawford?

ok. ted you've convinced me, with your credentials and all.

Slightly Dusty,

I have no problem with teaching all sides of any issue. It's a good way to teach critical thinking skills instead of just memorization and regurgitation of facts. The problem I have with this seems to be instead of this being education about multiple sides of an argument, it's pure propoganda paid for someone with an agenda.

Cyclical Climate Change. It's all a big hoax brought to you by these pointy nosed liberal alarmist scientists who are just tying to get grant money. How can they possibly know what the climate was like a hundred, or a thousand years ago.

(say what? ... I got what wrong? .... oh, gee. Sorry 'bout that, but I can fix it).

Global Warming. It's all a big hoax brought to you by those pointy nosed liberal alarmist scientists who are just trying to get money. How can they possibly reject the absolute knowledge that Cyclical Climate Change is a scientifically proven fact?

(That's the way it's supposed to go, right? I always get it mixed up about which science we're supposed to reject. Thanks for the help)

Katy M

There is a major problem with "teaching both sides of the issue" just as there is a major problem with teaching both sides of the evolution vs. creationism issue.

The problem arises in the decision about which teachers should teach the issues. Evolution is clearly a life science subject and belongs in biology class; creationism is clearly not science and, if taught at all, belongs in a religion or philosophy class .... usually religion and philosophy classes are not even offered in public schools as part of secondary education.

Climate change is clearly science and fits nicely into Earth Science classes. The scientific evidence is presented and conclusions drawn. If the evidence supports human-caused climate change, that side wins. If the evidence does not support human-caused climate change the deniers win.

It is obvious to anyone who reads these threads, painful as that process often is, most of the opposition to human-caused climate change is not based on interpretation of the greenhouse gas data. Most of the opposition is from those who point out the long history of climate change and claim that the current conditions are merely more of the same. Climate scientists, on the other hand, understand that there are many possible causes of climate change including tilting of the Earth's axis, ocean currents, different orientation of continents, and many others, and they have concluded that THIS episode of global warming is the result of the increase of greenhouse gases caused by human activity.

The other type of rant from the deniers is based on conspiracy, as in "THE SCIENTISTS LIE TO OBTAIN GRANT MONEY". This is clearly not a subject for a high school science class and is not the subject for any educational study unless proof of conspiracy is offered.

The purpose of science is investigation of the natural world based on measurable and repeatable data, and in that sense all reasonable theories are considered. Creationism has no standing in science and global warming denial is considered along with support of global warming.

LOL what a troll GreenTimer

This is the problem with this sort of argument. You’re arguing with a group of equivalent to a 9-11 truther. You can present all the evidence by scientists, actual scientists, and they’ll list a debunked study by non-scientists, or Sean Hannity pointing out that it snowed this year. No matter what you show them, they will dig in like a stubborn teenager. Scientists typically are more reasonable people, Richard Muller, a former climate change denier ran a Koch funded project to disprove climate change. Guess what ?!?!?! CLIMATE CHANGE!!!! he acknowledged that he was wrong. But the rest are like 9-11 truthers or birthers, it’s meaningless. Have you heard a birther acknowledge obama’s birth certificate after he released the official one? Nope. Not a one. I’ve met a truther and I showed him a popular mechanics article that debunked all the conspiracies from the loose change movie. Nope, still a conspiracy. We’ve become a people that are so proud we only read and view material to support our own opinions and when evidence to the contrary comes to light, we call it a conspiracy. Kudos to Richard Muller for eating crow! The rest of you are mentally ill.

Scientists typically are more reasonable people,

Herein is the crux of the problem succinctly stated in its antithesis form

because the statement I quoted above is, you see, a self-serving lie.

There is no "scientific proof" that scientists are more reasonable than non-scientists.

The sum of my own life's experience tells me that this widely held religious belief is a self-serving delusion.

These same people who insist that they are the most "reasonable" of all people cannot show a single reasonable basis for the belief. There is no known logical or moral connection between being methodical and being honest.

The more strenuously a person insists that "science" is a reliable method for finding truth, the less likely it is that the person knows or will admit that truth is a moral entity, distinguished from falsehood not by being objectively or dispassionately factual, but by not being an evil and selfish attempt to deceive someone--actually, an entirely subjective reality and emotional reality. There is a reason that we get angry when we have been lied to. The reason is that truth is not some dispassionate objective reality, it is a very passionate and personal matter.

One cannot be morally responsible for speaking a lie without knowing that it contradicts a known truth. A close examination of this fact reveals that a lie can only be spoken when the truth is known.

This is not the understanding of a scientist. It is the common understanding of every human being. The fact that scientists exalt themselves into some self-professed superior category while simultaneously speaking in a demeaning way of spiritual matters (such as the difference between truth and falsehood) is all the necessary and sufficient proof required by any ordinary moral person to reach a reliable judgment about the value of a "scientific" viewpoint.

How typical and expected: that a human being who worships one particular human process which is but one form of step-by-step method to the exclusion of all others is therefore, absent any support from that very method, self-assured that his method makes his thinking superior to the thinking of all other people who don't follow in his narrow footsteps, and that he is justified, on this same self-assured basis, of claiming a superior ability to make value judgments

AND ALL THE WHILE BEING AMONG THE MOST IGNORANT OF SOULS CONCERNING THE ISSUE OF "JUDGMENT" ITSELF

as though judgment, a thing the scientist has never actually contemplated on its own merits, could be, without investigation, thoughtlessly dismissed and assumed to be merely another "objective" material thing to be placed under his microscope--a thing for which he presently has no time to place there because, in his own mind, he is too busy with more "important" matters (but which, in reality, is a thing he refuses to consider worthy in and of itself as a subject of study precisely because, like "truth" it is a moral--that is, a spiritual--entity.)

Thus, sure that there is no spiritual reality, he then pulls the spiritual ladder of judgment over to assist him in climbing up to a higher spiritual level to make the claim of being more "reasonable" than other men, without ever even realizing that his refusal to recognize the spiritual nature of the process he is using--even as he denies not merely its importance, but its existence--absolutely contradicts his claim.

So then,, that is, well, if we absolutely MUST talk about people who are mentally ill . . .

Give us hearts to understand;

Treat the earth well.
It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
Ancient Indian Proverbs:

When all the trees have been cut down,
when all the animals have been hunted,
when all the waters are polluted,
when all the air is unsafe to breathe,
only then will you discover you cannot eat money.
Cree Prophecy

I do not think the measure of a civilization
is how tall its buildings of concrete are,
But rather how well its people have learned to relate
to their environment and fellow man.
Sun Bear of the Chippewa Tribe

We return thanks to our mother, the earth,
which sustains us.
We return thanks to the rivers and streams,
which supply us with water.
We return thanks to all herbs,
which furnish medicines for the cure of our diseases.
We return thanks to the moon and stars,
which have given to us their light when the sun was gone.
We return thanks to the sun,
that has looked upon the earth with a beneficent eye.
Lastly, we return thanks to the Great Spirit,
in Whom is embodied all goodness,
and Who directs all things for the good of Her children.

Never to take from creation's beauty more than we give;
never to destroy wantonly for the furtherance of greed;

Never to deny to give our hands for the building of earth's beauty;
never to take from her what we cannot use.

Give us hearts to understand

That to destroy earth's music is to create confusion;
that to wreck her appearance is to blind us to beauty;

That to callously pollute her fragrance is to make a house of stench;
that as we care for her she will care for us.

We have forgotten who we are.

We have sought only our own security.

We have exploited simply for our own ends.

We have distorted our knowledge.

We have abused our power.

Great Spirit, whose dry lands thirst,

Help us to find the way to refresh your lands.

Great Spirit, whose waters are choked with debris and pollution,
help us to find the way to cleanse your waters.

Great Spirit, whose beautiful earth grows ugly with misuse,
help us to find the way to restore beauty to your handiwork.

Great Spirit, whose creatures are being destroyed,
help us to find a way to replenish them.

Great Spirit, whose gifts to us are being lost in selfishness and corruption,
help us to find the way to restore our humanity.

Oh, Great Spirit, whose voice I hear in the wind,
whose breath gives life to the world, hear me;
I need your strength and wisdom. May I walk in Beauty.

Honestly, reply in the affirmative if you believe in God's word, or in the negative if you believe not.

From a Native American.

Yep, folks on the right tend to protest mindlessly swallowing the fevered end-of-the-world predictions of left-wing climate change alarmists. If the left is so confident in their 'science' there should be no complaints about a robust discussion of differing views. Instead of welcoming the opportunity to prove their views, the left tries to squash any dissenting views.

Let both sides bring everything they can to the discussion and the scientific method will prove who is correct in the long run.

Moral Conscience,

The Teachers Unions and the liberal left are the ones who have been brainwashing our children for decades. Can't discuss or learn about Christianity, but it's perfectly fine to to develop curriculum's to teach kids that it's perfectly normal for Tommy to have two daddy's, or require classes praising the contributions of gays, lesbians and trans-genders. Why can't we teach about the contributions of just people and leave the leftist social indoctrinations out. Another idea that will never see the light of day would be to present ideas such as: children do better when they are raised by both a mom and a dad; excelling in school will improve your life; competition is a good thing; making money is a good thing, if done with ethics and morals.

This is called educating. They are offering science based information which provides more plausible and reasonable explanations for the changes in the climate on earth.

In typical liberal fashion, anyone offering a dissenting opinion is labeled as extreme, or puppets of the rich, bla bla bla. There is no interest by the liberals to have real serious discussions on topics like these, because they know they will be exposed as frauds.

The truth is the climate is changing. The lies are the changes are caused by man. The climate changes are a natural part of the cycles on this planet.

Obama and the left have mastered the Alarmist form of communication, this creates fear and panic and results in new laws and regulations favoring the agenda of the left. Look at the money made by Al Gore, Solyndra, Nancy Pelosi, Diane Feinstein and the so called environmentalists. Boatloads of money are made until real analysis and sound science reveal the lies. The left then simply moves on to the next hoax. The hole in the ozone layer made millions for many, once that became a non-factor, it was global warming, now that global warming is no longer working, the left has come up with "global climate change". I just shudder thinking about the next hoax by the left. Thank God my children are beyond the reach of the public schools now and won't be exposed to the brainwashing, however, I do worry about their children.

Smaller Government + Lower Taxes = More Freedom + Prosperity for All

"The lies are the changes are caused by man. The climate changes are a natural part of the cycles on this planet."

And you know that this is true for the current, dramatic, never-before-seen changes, because....?

What never before seen changes are you talking about?

We have actually (as men) seen a little ice age and a global warming period!!

The exageration that this is a never before seen change is exactly why people roll their eyes. It would be far better if we were intellectually honest instead of making statements that are blatantly untrue.

If you have paid attention to any of the recent studies of gases trapped in various glacial ice sources, you will have heard that the current changes are happening at a never-before-seen rate. Even the little ice age and previous warming period pale in comparison with the latest evidence.

It is inappropriate for you to accuse me of making false statements or being intellectually dishonest. I have no hidden agenda or axe to grind, but rather am commenting on the information that I have seen in reliable and unbiased sources such as Scientific American.

It isn't that the changes are "never before seen," it's that the average rate of temperature increase since the 1970s (about 0.16 deg C per decade) can't be explained by anything other than greenhouse gases. For example, the Sun as measured from space has not become brighter during that time period. Also, the ocean is warming too (confirmed again in 2011), so it can't just be a transfer of heat from the ocean to the atmosphere. NASA just analyzed all of this in detail and found that a significant amount of heat was added to the Earth's oceans and climate system even during the recent solar minimum, which has now ended. If you're going to teach that there's still some uncertainty, then you need to teach all the facts including the latest NOAA and NASA data.

By some accounts, the earth is 4 to 4.5 billion years old, others say the earth is around 100 million years old. Some people say man has been on earth for 200,000 years, some say 1 billion years. Given the fact that there is such a difference of opinion on those fact, how can we honestly, reliably and accurately state that the temperature changes we have seen over the last few hundred years are caused by man.

In my opinion, that is akin to recording the temperature every minute today and concluding that since the temperature has dropped from 6:00pm to 9:00pm, man has caused the planet to cool.

There are just as many scientists who dispute the man-caused global warming claim as those who support it. So why not present both sides and allow an honest discussion? Of course, I think we know the answer to that one.

And how was winter in Alberta last year? Record cold and snow across the globe in 2011 is forgotten by 2012 - but now having a mild winter in parts of North America, while Europe is in a deep freeze, is proof of global warming. Oh, sorry... climate change - I forgot the Ministry of Truth had changed the term in the textbooks.

Looks like you've been brainwashed by the side of indoctrination that has the real lock on education. And you think your eyes are open?

always...,

The vast majority of people acknowledge that the climate is not the same every year.

Many people also acknowledge that the climate is changing.

Some of the educated people do their own research and understand that the changing climate is a natural part of the cycles on this planet.

The intelligent and non-reactionary people understand that the "man made global warming" theory is really a hoax perpetrated by the liberal left to create fear and panic and use that fear and panic to enrich themselves.

The conservatives attempt to educate those who have been mislead by Obama and the liberal left.

The rest of the people continue to believe the lies of the left.

PS: While is has been warmer over most of North America, it has been colder across Europe. That was an earlier prediction of some climate models. What may surprise most readers, is that large scale Green House Growers around the world actually inject CO2 into the Greenhouses or burn kerosene for the same purpose. CO2 makes the plants grow larger and decreases the amount of heat that must be provided in cold weather. Facts not Fiction.

The article is discussing AGW, and by implication, CO2. Carbon Dioxide is a naturally occurring and man made gas. It is not a pollutant. No matter what propoganda the EPA puts out. Please temper your hyperbole about boiling oceans.

Jeff-498218: Try breathing in a somewhat large concentration of CO2 (carbon dioxide). It is a killer! Just not as fast as CO (carbon monoxide). By the way, CO2 isn't the only "Greenhouse Gas" involved. There are many other pollutants being discharged into the air. Remember Freon?

Ya, the kids are the ones who are going to have to deal with the outcome of the controversy, or their kids, etc. So you're right! (as long as the deniers aren't outright lying)

YOU may not be advocating misinformation, but THEY are.

andy1776 - Best common sense post I've read on here. Global warming/climate change is a theory, not a proven fact. Both schools of thought ought to be presented. Just as with the theory of evolution, not the "fact".

People who want to allow only one side to be taught are obviously afraid of being found wrong and so want to drown out any other opinion. You can say a thing more often and you can say it louder but it does not make it so.

Giving kids data and letting them decide what the truth is has two major problems. First, kids don't develop critical thinking until at least their mid to late teens and the true ability to think ahead doesn't develop until the late teens or early twenties. Hence the higher insurance rates for people until 25 yrs of age. Thus "kids" that are less than about 14-15 have difficulty with abstract thought, so can't be expected to make deductions about what is true or not. Adolescents, ie teenagers, start to use abstract reasoning, but given that PhD's can't agree on climate warming, how will adolescents?

Second, data this complex cannot be presented directly, ie, as "naked data", but has to be interpreted by a specialist to be even close to accurate. However, in this interpretation phase, a person's prejudices determine how "gray area" data is interpreted. This is data that a judgment has to be made such as to whether to include it or not, and is oftenbased upon what particular statistics a person is using. This is very, very abstract and often is very controversial how this is done. Unfortunately in this case, how the "expert" does this makes all the difference as to the outcome. Thus subjectivity enters at all levels in sciene, so Scienctism's claim that it is "objective" is much more flawed that they would like it to be.

Last, if you apply this idea to all of school, it implies that we won't tout Democracy in our schools, but present equal data on Communism and Socialism so they can "make up their own minds". I don't think so. Indoctrination is part and parcel of ALL education. Even through that may sound evil, it is part of how we become a cohesive culture that is able to function together. However, it can be evil if used to "prove" that say certain races are inferior, etc., but that's another story.

A desperate scramble for untold Billions of dollar in Grant money!

Really? Where is that money? Plus there are much better ways to scam grant money. Climate change denial propaganda has much more money behind it. Not a valid argument anyway against the multiple lines of evidence that all support human caused global warming. That is just an appeal to ignorance. You have to take on the strongest elements of an opponents arguments to be taken serious by a rational audience. Of course it is likely you are not trying to address the rational among us.

" Just as with the theory of evolution, not the "fact"."

Oh please don't go there. You do not help your scientific credentials by denying something as well-proven as evolution. Scientists would just laugh at you.

You mean like both sides of evolution?

Yeah, lets teach both sides of the theory of gravity and also present the opinions of the flat earth society while we're at it.

And there are those loons out there who deny that we ever landed on the moon so we'd better present their little side of reality also.

I know a guy who believes that some of the people we see walking around are actually aliens. Better teach that to the kids too.

Pugface- you are a complete idiot that proves what the right-wing and other mythologists have done to the education system has dumbed down Americans to rank at the bottom of the modern nations. A "Theory" in science means that it is supported by over 95% of the FACTS (99.9% when dealing with physics). Your lack of understanding this FACT identifies that you 1) have no proper education (very likely), or 2) you had it but chose to ignore reality (a/k/a a "conservative"). It is most likely both.

Please remove yourself from the genepool imediately. While you will no doubt become a statistic soon, as you are a Darwin award candidate, America can no longer afford idiots like you science/reality deniers. Please go meet your invisible man in the clouds now.

One of the biggest mis-statements I've read in post after post after post is people that think they know what the definition of a scientific theory and law are. Look it up. Learn something. You are completely absolutely wrong is stating such thing as

Global warming/climate change is a theory, not a proven fact. Both schools of thought ought to be presented. Just as with the theory of evolution, not the "fact".

This is just unbelievably wrong.

Remember from your History Books when Religion taught us that the Earth was the center of all Creation and that the Sun and all of the stars (they didn't know about planets) revolved around the Earth. Cost a lot of people their lives over that.)

It depends on whether one side is made up or not.

Exactly! Which side is made up? Just listen to Al Gore? Should be obvious.

There are not sides of the story. There is scientific evidence against propaganda in this case. Factual evidence and research is what needs to be taught. Skepticism is already innate in all science; it does not need non-critical, spin doctored, pseudo-skepticism masquerading as an alternative hypothesis.

At one point in history there was "scientific evidence" that the world was flat.

"At one point in history there was "scientific evidence" that the world was flat."

No there wasn't. Nobody using science ever came to that conclusion. The educated people in Europe had known the earth was round for over a thousand years. It was the forces of ignorance that insisted it was flat, just as they deny science today.

@ krohleder

In this case there is. When the "science" is being manipulated to support or create an agenda, then it is no longer "science." Think about it.

There is also the theory that jock59801 is always correct and anyone who does not share that opinion is inferior.

Evil Business Owner - Well said.

At one point in history there was "scientific evidence" that the world was flat.

Not true at all. Furthermore even if it was scientific process would work it out since you must perpetually try to prove all of your hypotheses as false.

Early Mesopotamian mythology (not science) created the flat earth concept. The ancient Greeks had a spherical concept.

Claudius Ptolemy created arguments for the spherical shape of the Earth; such as the scientific observation that when sailing towards mountains, they seem to rise from the ocean, demonstrating that they were not visible due to the curved surface of the earth.

Let me see, on the one side we have a scientific theory, backed up with tons of research and data collected and analyzed by very intelligent people for centuries under very strict scientific rules. On the other hand we have a series of stories passed by word of mouth for centuries and then written down in now dead languages by unnamed authors, with enough logical gaps to drive a planet through them. Yeah, there are two sides, the scientific one and the supertitious one. Are you aware, for example, that the story of the Creation in the Old Testament is virtually identical to the story of the Creation in Babylonian mythology? By the way, the Babylonians did not believe in the God of the Hebrews and Christians., but they did hold the Jews as slaves for centuries. Where do you think they picked up their Creation myth?

willowbrook: Science that is manipulated is not science at all. Scientist, in every experiment attempt for prove their hypothesis false. If they do not, their trusty colleges will. That is the beauty of science. Bias can be a problem which is why science had procedures and innate skepticism (real skepticism not spin doctored non-sense you see here). Plus you have multiple lines of evidence that bring together a theory. Like with Global warming and Evolution. Entirely different fields of study and methodologies come up independently with supporting results. There are always holes, which funny enough, only the scientists seem to care about. The actual weaknesses in the theory of Global warming have been pretty much ignored by denial-ists (for the lack of a better word), who instead like the bad arguments and misinformation better.

So, my original point was "What is wrong with presenting both opinions or theories to children in school?" I am not confirming or denying the existence of human-caused climate change. I only feel that we should inform our students of all of the possibilities.

@ krohleder - search "global warming data manipulation" you will find scads of articles from a variety of sources. I am well aware of scientific methodology, that's why this cannot yet be taught as scientific fact. Until data exists that is unmanipulated and the trials by others totally support it, it is not science.

Why limit it to climate change Evil Business Owner. If we are going to teach opposing opinions rather that credible fact-based theories, let's be fair about it. The Holocaust? Didn't happen...9/11? We did it ourselves. Vaccines? Kill our kids. Gay marriage? Destroys all it comes in contact with. Contraception? Some god or other is going to be pissed. Easter Bunny? Why not. Santa? sure. A well educated American population? ....well no one is going to believe that, not even the far right.

Well, I believe in both sides in this debate. I believe in a flat Earth, and global warming. I call my theory the frying pan hypothesis ! If we have many more oil spills, we won't have to come up with a Teflon solution.

No doubt you'll find a lot of articles on "data manipulation," but I doubt the articles are supported by much hard evidence. There is no evidence at all that key data sets like the NOAA global average temperature record have been manipulated in any inappropriate way, and there are plenty of signs of warming besides just the temperature record.

Yes, Dan. Those darn liberals "indoctrinating" the children to care about the environment. The secret political platform of wanting to breathe better air and drink cleaner water. We must challenge such outrageous views, along with suspicious agendas like free healthcare for all citizens. It's just un-American to give a crap about other people and the planet.

Dan, do you have anything against teaching science in school?

Last time I checked facts and data aren't political. Just opinions. It only takes one 'scientist' to make some say things like 'not all scientists agree'. The vast consensus is that the climate is changing due to human factors (not opinion, fact). There are a few who are skeptical or deny the obvious. There are quacks in every field: I saw a 'scientist' recently give a paper on how we're not running out of fossil fuels and they are actually being created under ground rather quickly...his funding came from Exxon. Don't bite the hand that feeds you. He was laughed out of the room after a severe grilling from the real scientists in the audience.

Science and critical thinking challenges ideas. Not spin doctored outdated philosophies. Forced liberal versus conservative dichotomies are irrelevant, and only useful for political theater.

EComan101 15

Your assertion that there is no credible body of scientists that disuptes global warming is completely false and is just more of the usual warmer propaganda that is promoted by the UN, and people such as yourself blindly buy into it without examining the opposing viewpoint.

UN global warming BS concludes via an Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that humans are responsible for emissions that are increasing atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gasses, specifically; CO2. Accordingly, they predict that if left unchecked, the global temperature will increase and we will all be doomed.
They go on to introduce numerous assessment and supplementary reports from 1990 through 2007 and a future assessment report for 2014, all dire predictions of doom and gloom if we don't mend our ways and impose taxes on just about everything. (Isn't it funny how the solution always entails taking our money?)
In any event, all their many reports and assessments have concluded that climate change (they no longer like to use the term "global warming") is due primarily to excessive emissions or CO2 and that significant amounts of these emissions are being trapped in our atmosphere, hence our need to reduce these emissions.

But wait; there has been empirical evidence to the contrary. Read on:

NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed. In fact, over this period there has actually been an ongoing slight cooling trend.

What they did at the UN was to fabricate the amount of emissions retained by the atmosphere so their computer models would produce the desired result. The NASA satellites actual data debunks ruse this quite nicely.

In conclusion, don't look for this climate change bunch to go quietly into the night as there's far too much money and power at stake. As for the NASA data, this bunch has pretty much decided to simply ignore it as if it doesn't exist.

So Al Gore and all the tree huggers he has aligned with have so much money that they are overpowering Exxon-Mobil, the Koch Brothers, Chevron, and all those other poor oppressed energy corporations. Do you even undertand how ridiculous that claim is, or are you being paid for it? The evidence seems to show that the relatively few scientists who question climate change are being paid for their opinions. This report certainly confirms that.

Why not just teach them the basics of mathematics, chemistry, and phisics like we do and let them come to these kind of conclusions on their own. They dont need ideas like this beat down their throats ... just give them the tools to make their own decisions ... thats what k-12 is about. When they go to college they can choose their own curriculum and lean whatever way they want.

This is similar to teaching kids about phisics and how nuclear energy works ... then having a class about restricting other countries from using them because of nuclear weapon threats. They ought to be able to make that decision on their own later when they can vote based on how relevant that threat is to them ... and not fed to them by the state beforehand.

Sorry, but the claim (in one article published last year) about NASA satellite data showing far more heat released to space was quickly refuted. The truth is that climate models that include the important El Nino/La Nina cycle in addition to greenhouse gases match the satellite data well. Also, NASA just published a study called " Earth's energy budget 'out of balance' " that clearly shows the Earth absorbed more energy than it returned to space, even during the 2005-2010 solar minimum period.

This is not new, the Koch brothers have been buying education for some time now.

http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/05/10/koch-u-florida-state-university-hands-over-economics-department-to-billionaire-libertarians/

– West Virginia University: As ThinkProgress reported last year, Koch funds an array of academic programs at West Virginia University, a public university. One Koch-funded academic at WVU, economics professor Russell Sobel, has written a book blasting regulations of all types. He even argues that less mine safety regulations will make coal miners more safe. As the St. Petersburg Times reported, a similar arrangement has been made with WVU as with FSU in accepting at least $480,000 from Koch.

– Brown University: The Charles Koch Foundation funds the Political Theory Project at Brown, which provides funding for “Seminar Luncheons for undergraduates, academic conferences, research fellowships for graduate students, support for faculty research, and a postdoctoral fellowship program.” Amity Shales, a pop-conservative writer who argues that the New Deal made the Great Depression worse, an odd theory promoted by Charles Koch himself, has been a featured speaker at the Koch-funded Project at Brown. Moreover, Koch’s donation of at least $419,254 to Brown has underwritten a number of research projects in the Economics and Political Science deparments, including a paper arguing that bank deregulation has helped the poor.

– Troy University: The Charles Koch Foundation, along with the Manuel Johnson and the BB&T Foundation, provided Troy University, a public university, a gift of $3.6 million to establish the Center for Political Economy last year. The Center’s stated goal is to push back against the belief following the financial crisis that markets need regulation. Notably, the entire Advisory Council for the Center is made up of Koch and BB&T-funded professors at other universities, including Russell Sobel at West Virginia University and Peter Boettke at George Mason University. Currently, the Center’s only staffer, Professor Scott Beaulier, is a board member of the ExxonMobil-funded attack group, American Energy Alliance, and a former staffer for Koch’s think tank at George Mason.

– Utah State University: The Charles Koch Foundation has given nearly $700,000 to Utah State University, mostly for the Huntsman School of Business. The money has been used to hire five new faculty members, and establish a program for undergraduates to enroll and learn about Charles Koch’s “Science of Liberty” management theory. Professor Randy Simmons, the “Charles G. Koch Professor of Political Economy” at the school, helps select students — who must provide information about their ideological interests in their application form — to the Koch program. Simmons also works for several Koch-funded front groups, and writes papers against environmental regulations. Charles Koch’s book, “The Science of Success,” a book Forbes mocked for proclaiming a “Marxist faith in ‘fixed laws’ that govern ‘human well-being,’” is part of the required reading list for the program. A representative for Utah State did not return ThinkProgress’ calls about conditional strings attached to the Koch grant.

The Koch bros and their ilk have been installing pro polluter professors and professors of voodoo economics in many universities. Their donations come with strings attached (choosing professors).

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2011/05/11/144280/koch-university-takeover/

Thanks EricH, that is absolutely correct. The NASA satellites and their re-calibrations to correct for temperature were one of the last pieces of the puzzle that proved global warming. Again, there is no credible body of scientists in the world who dispute global warming. You can check the National Academy of Science and NOAH as a credible, substantiated and undeniable source. It is pure science and it is a fact. Even in the area of opinion there is no good argument for not keeping our environment free of pollution. It is the right thing to do. It is not a liberal/conservative, republican/democrat issue, and choosing to view it along those lines is irrational. Controlling pollution is simply a neccessary good for the planet and the US is a top polluter. Weakening or abolishing pollution standards is short-sighted and suicidal.

Erich 15.4

This very recent article published January 30, 2012 is already undergoing scrutiny and generating criticism specifically due to some (unintentionally?) misplaced decimal points to support his conclusions. This report is currently undergoing peer review and early indications are that some of his narrative is in contradiction with his graphs. One apparent contradiction that was noted by a reviewer stated:

"The researchers' calculations show that, despite unusually low solar activity between 2005 and 2010, the planet continued to absorb more energy than it returned to space."

Then why is the slope for this period negative using their own data?
#Time series (gistemp) from 1880 to 2012
#Selected data from 2005
#Selected data up to 2011
#Least squares trend line; slope = -0.000918387 per year

As stated, this is a very recent article and peer review continues and there seems much in this article that is misleading. More to follow.

No, but apparently you can make them up.

Not everyone is a liberal.

Then quit attacking THEM personally, and maybe we can work it out.

FOX news even touts themselves as ENTERTAINMENT! This IS NOT A NEWS CHANNEL!!!

As seen on a bumper sticker: "No TEA for me, Thanks! I prefer Progress!"

Then why is Media matters targeting Fox employees? This is a true story, if Fox is so Faux why does Media Matters want to discredit these people? I don't listen much to Fox analyst's myself, but it appears the liberal left takes them very seriously. Maybe I should pay more attention.

What parts of the words GLOBAL and CLIMATE do you not understand?

Because the weather in Europe is representative of the entire planet, of course.

Greenies=9/11 truthers

Msnbc.com: Dozens of people stranded by ice in Russian sea

Season 2012 : Episode 0215
Feb. 15: Several ships are stuck in the ice in a Russian sea because of unusually cold temperatures. Msnbc.com's Alex Witt reports

Right Robert. The planet must be warming since it hasn't snowed in Italy for 26 years. They act like it has never happened before. In December of 1944 during the Battle of the Bulge there were below zero temps, the coldest in 100 years, but that also doesn't mean it was anything new, it just hadn't happened for 100 years. The temperatures are never going to be the same in each season from year to year. In 2008 it snowed 3.5" in Beaumont, TX, the first time in 35 years... but it had happened before, just not often. All this is the long range cycle repeating itself.

The climate is changing, the climate is a cycle, it's always changing as it was before man was here and as it will do long after man is gone. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth North America was a vast lush jungle, then the glaciers extended south as far as north MS, AL, GA and have been receding ever since.

The oceans have risen before. There have been sea shells found in the Rocky Mountains, whale bones found in the Sahara desert. The Coastal plains of the Gulf of Mexico region were once ocean floor.

But just for the sake of argument, if there really is too much CO2 accumulating in our atmosphere there is a solution that is not radical and involves no tax money being collected. PLANT TREES AND OTHER GREENERY that CONSUME CO2 and produce oxygen. Crisis resolved, world saved... next.

Before the environuts go hating on me, not believing in the global warming theory does not make me a person who wants to trash the planet. I believe that pollution is a bad thing and should be limited as much as possible, that's only common sense to not foul your own nest. Everyone who doesn't buy the GW stuff is not out to destroy the planet.

Apparently Soldiers Dad has no knowledge of plate tectonics or geology, period, or why the Rockies weren't alway mountains, etc. I'll tell you this...the sea shells have been found there because the Rockies weren't mountains at the time they were covered by oceans...they hadn't formed yet.

oh dad, poor dad... you have no understanding of the carbon cycle. The increase in CO2 right NOW is causing an increase in the acidity of the oceans. The primary sink for the CO2 is the OCEAN, not plants. While plants can convert the gas to a solid, they are not adequate in VOLUME to do the job. For some unexplained reason (religious, perhaps?) you seem top think that the ocean "rise" was related to glacial activity. What HAPPENED was called "plate tectonics" where the movement of the continents pushed up those formerly dry ocean beds. We can even see it happening today as the Indian subcontinent pushes against ASIA causing the Himalaya mountains to continue to rise (albeit, VERY slowly - on the order of a millimeter per year at most - Everest HAS been "growing" - measurements confirm it) Of course, the movements took MILLIONS of years (literally)... and the ice ages took tens of thousands of years from start to finish, too....

I agree with Soldier's Dad, you people commenting on here like you are Nobel scientists make me laugh.

Although planting trees and stopping deforestation would help, it won't be enough as long as we keep emitting billions of tons of carbon each year from fossil fuel sources.

1 - I'm old enough to remember when the media told us that we were entering the New Ice Age and that by the 1980s we would be seeing warfare in the streets over food shortages and long johns. When none of these things came to be did they print retractions or even mention it again? Nope. Then they changed the game to be Global Warming.

2- What caused the cooling /warming trends recorded in Europe in the Middle Ages - chimney fires?

3- What caused the Ice Age? Did the dinosaurs defoliate the forests?

4- MSNBC pretty much gets its "news feed" right from Media Matters. Why would anyone consider it to be a legitimate unbiased news organization?

The fact that I even took the time to post this makes me ashamed. Damn waste of words.

Yes, the media hyped an ice age back in the 1970s, but most scientific papers were already predicting warming. And ice ages are now well-understood to be caused primarily by long-term cycles in the Earth's orbit and axis tilt. That's not what's happening now (or at least it's much less than the opposite warming effect of greenhouse gases).

Like mostly everything spewing forth from Faux news is debunked.

Great primer on climate change available from Weather Underground http://www.wunderground.com/climate/RoughGuide2e.asp

sunnyd-159 Thanks! If only the deniers in here would read it before posting.

Go to space.com, take a look at the photographs of the changing polar ice caps, including the thermal imaging of the caps, and the surrounding land masses. In the past, this type of change has taken place over thousands of years. Then when you add in deforestation in the Amazon, the ever increasing number of humans, each adding greenhouse gasses, the ever increasing number of emerging nations using coal, and oil to drive their economies, and you can see why many of us do in fact comprehend the fact that global warming is a reality. Weather patterns are radically changing. animals are migrating to compensate, others are dying off, and the Nay Sayers continue to bury their heads in the sand. or begin their nefarious activities to "reeducate" our population.

Science is a waste of money? It is scary that there are people who might actually believe that.

No Jock - Your unproven theory is a waste of time & money.

The problem is that the science supports anthropogenic climate change, and these folks want to dishonestly deny that fact.

you assume that the left wants to hear both sides. Since when do they do that? If you attempt to sway them in that direction, you will called a racist, homophobe, etc, etc, etc. Don't bother.

Jock, there is also science the refutes the idea. It is all theory. I have not seen any real proof either way so it all comes down to ones belief system.

The Heartland Institute was also funded by big tobacco to find that cigaret smoking was harmless.

It's called JUNK SCIENCE people. WAKE UP!

The Heartland Institute was also funded by big tobacco to find that cigaret smoking was harmless.

It's called JUNK SCIENCE people. WAKE UP!