iPhone app iPad app Android phone app Android tablet app More

Climate Change Causes Heated Battles For Science Teachers

Climate Change Class

First Posted: 01/18/2012 6:10 pm Updated: 01/18/2012 6:51 pm

Prior to taking Mr. Visco's high school science class, Keith Hogan did not believe humans had had any hand in climate change.

"I thought the media had just picked that up and blown it out of proportion," he said.

Hogan remembers the day the "lightbulb went off," about four years ago. He'd always been into cars and would get defensive if someone tried to pin climate change on vehicle emissions. But when Mr. Visco pointed out that the methane spewing from livestock was actually a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, Hogan opened up and began to reconsider, and then accept, the scientific consensus on anthropogenic climate change.

"Keith was like George Bush in disguise," recalled Chris Visco, who is now retired. "It's funny how things progressed with him."

Imparting the science of climate change is not always so easy. Many of Hogan's conservative classmates at Sachem High School in Long Island, N.Y. avoided taking Mr. Visco's class, aware that they'd hear views that conflicted with their own. And around the country -- from Washington State to Oklahoma -- pressure and pushback from skeptical students, teachers and administrators pose challenges.

In 2008, Louisiana voted to allow public school teachers to teach both creationism and the views of climate change skeptics. Last May, a school board in Las Alamitos, Calif., voted unanimously to require environmental science teachers cover "multiple perspectives" on climate change. That decision was later rescinded.

"For every [conflict] you hear about there are probably 10 you don't, and probably 100 teachers that will just not teach it because that is the easiest way out," said Mike Town, an environmental science teacher at Redmond High School in Washington and a participant in a National Academy of Sciences workshop on climate change education.

The National Center for Science Education, long-touted for its efforts to help teachers address evolution in the classroom, has recognized the predicament and announced this week that it would add climate change to its repertoire, offering teachers a range of tools and legal support.

"It's a bit daunting to tell you the truth," said Eugenie Scott, executive director of the NCSE. "It's not like we were bored. There's still plenty to do in the evolution realm."

THE FACTS: NOT ENOUGH

About a quarter of teachers recently polled by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) reported facing skepticism about climate change and climate change education from their administrators; more than half faced the same from parents. Further, 82 percent noted that they had dealt with skepticism from their students.

This pressure can have consequences, warns other data. Despite the estimated 89 percent of teachers who believe climate change is happening, a survey by the National Earth Sciences Teachers Association also found that 36 percent had been influenced to teach "both sides" of the debate.

A case in point: After Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" was shown in a Portola Valley, Calif., middle school class, a parent requested that the teacher hold a debate between a climate change-denier and a climate scientist to provide "balance." John Davenport, the union representative who spoke for the teacher in the controversy, consulted with the NCSE.

"They made it clear that this was virgin ground for them," Davenport said, adding that the center told the district that the policy issue belonged in a social studies class, not a science class.

Overall, 63 percent of the U.S. general public agrees that global warming is happening and 35 percent attribute it to natural changes, according to a new Yale report which found similar rates for teenagers' knowledge of the subject.

Most politicians, meanwhile, lack a science background. "We need an informed citizenry to help the politicians make the best decisions," said Scott. "In the case of climate change, the reality is there and the consequences for society are profound."

Anthony Leiserowitz, director of the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and lead researcher of the report, added that an understanding of climate change is "necessary but not sufficient" for making such decisions. Facts also need to be interpreted through the lenses of values.

He calls climate change the "policy problem from hell," partly because of the long lag time between actions and results on the issue.

Religious and political beliefs also come into play.

Last Friday, in a conversation with Arianna Huffington, public television icon Bill Moyers highlighted other recent findings: "Even if you, a modern American, are presented with a fact you know to be false, you nonetheless reject it if it offends or undermines your belief system," he said.

In his new book, "Fool Me Twice: Fighting the Assault on Science in America," Shawn Lawrence Otto suggests that the same conflict between science and beliefs has played out through much of history. He quotes a letter that Albert Einstein wrote to a friend. "This world is a strange madhouse," Einstein said. "Currently every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation."

Town suggests little has changed today. "If you come from a Republican household and your parents are watching Fox News and trying to pick a candidate, and your science teacher is telling you that climate change is one of the most important things that could impact your life," added Town, "then it's easy to have to find a way to discredit" the latter.

THE NEXT EVOLUTION

Visco first taught climate change in 1977, at a Catholic high school. Since then, he said he's noticed public perception of the topic go from "nothing to awareness to negativity."

That last turning point, Visco said, came around the release of "An Inconvenient Truth." He said the film brought climate change into the public's consciousness, but it also sparked a build-up of denialist propaganda, which then flooded teachers' mailboxes and students' minds.

"In many ways, climate change is where evolution education was about 20 yeas ago," said Scott, noting NCSE's constant struggle with anti-evolution propaganda.

There are many parallels between the two battles, as well as some important differences.

"In the case of evolution, the objection to teaching it is based in religious ideology," said Scott. "In climate change, the objection is based in political and economic ideology."

While both cases are unscientific, only the former has the backing of the First Amendment: "Climate change is going to be a much harder battle to fight," Scott said.

Another key difference is that evolution fits into a core high school course: biology. Climate change, on the other hand, may only come up in an elective course or during middle school -- before most kids have the background to comprehend the complex concepts.

A revision to the science education standards is currently underway, in which climate change will be "explicitly noted," said Francis Eberle, executive director of the NSTA.

Mark McCaffrey, the new programs and policy director for climate change at the NCSE, also emphasized that it was important for the subject to be taught in a "relevant" and "practical" manner.

During his time with the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) at the University of Colorado at Boulder, McCaffrey helped spearhead the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network, which offers resources for teachers to connect the dots between climate and energy consumption.

For Visco's class, that meant teaching his students that small changes could have a large impact on the planet. "I had lots of students who would come in and say, 'My parents hate you. I'm driving them nuts, making them recycle and turn heat down and change lightbulbs,'" he recalled.

In many cases, by teaching his students he was also teaching their parents, something that Yale's Leiserowitz has also found. "Do parents influence kids, or do kids influence parents? Evidence suggests that it works both ways."

"I definitely saw changes in my students, and I definitely saw parents that softened," said Visco.

FOLLOW HUFFPOST GREEN

Prior to taking Mr. Visco's high school science class, Keith Hogan did not believe humans had had any hand in climate change. "I thought the media had just picked that up and blown it out of propor...
Prior to taking Mr. Visco's high school science class, Keith Hogan did not believe humans had had any hand in climate change. "I thought the media had just picked that up and blown it out of propor...
 
 
  • Comments
  • 3,131
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Post Comment Preview Comment
To reply to a Comment: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to.
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (21 total)
07:04 PM on 02/06/2013
Thanks for sharing this article! I'm glad that someone knows their osha training requirements. Do you know of any other websites with this same information?
photo
rascal barquecat
250 words? That's not enough to complete a
12:55 PM on 02/20/2012
"...avoided taking Mr. Visco's class, aware that they'd hear views that conflicted with their own. "

That pretty much sums up the vast bulk of anti-science, anti-gay, anti-____ in the world. They already have their opinion, don't confuse them with the facts. Very sad.
12:54 PM on 02/18/2012
To the author Ms. Peeples - You have stirred up quite a debate but I think you have misled the readers. Your headline picture shows a split of what could be real Air Pollution and that is quite misleading. As you know CO2 is a trace colourless odorless gas. Was this intentional?
While we're at it; I have seen too many pictures of Nuclear power stations with their cooling towers spewing (that terrible pollutant) water vapor. Are we misleading subliminally.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Flannery
Editor, nerd, dad.
01:12 PM on 02/18/2012
Now, now, let's not niggle over details. The important thing is the larger message that anything that makes smoke (or, er, anything that looks like smoke) is bad.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
10:17 PM on 02/19/2012
The picture accurately represents what is happening. Massive amounts of carbon based fossil fuels are being mined and burned which releases billions of tons of Co2 and other greenhouse gases.
12:34 AM on 02/18/2012
Not one mention of the burgeoning mining boom has been made during the entire climate change debate! I note that governments avoid the real issues when it comes to climate change and how to turn the tides. As for science.... isn't that the industry that has killed so many people in such a short time?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
10:18 PM on 02/19/2012
Computers can be used to exchange information which may lead to the death of people. Please shut yours off immediately.
12:40 AM on 02/21/2012
your comment is arrogant and arrogance is why so many people don't trust scientists!
10:27 PM on 02/17/2012
It seems to me that this Pat Flannery character is a doubter of Climate Change. I wouldn't label him a DENIER quite yet but he is trodding at the fringes. Put it this way - I wouldn't want him anywhere around my kids.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Patrick Flannery
Editor, nerd, dad.
01:08 PM on 02/18/2012
Very wise. I might let them make a campfire or something.
03:39 PM on 02/09/2012
Teachers face reality - they were sold a bill of goods and it was packaged with all the right words. To bad it wasn't real. The temperature rises and falls with a VERY small influence by people. Still coming out of an ice age so temps may continue to rise - but will be abated until perhaps 2035.

CO2 is not the greenhouse gas the Hockey Team would have you believe. Doubling CO2 will have a minimal impact, even from today numbers, it is NOT a linear relationship with temperature. The models are wrong and the forcings are not correct in the models. Yes it is hotter today than 20 years ago, barely, but temps have plateaued and the vaunted models say the temps should be MUCH higher, they are not.
09:34 PM on 02/10/2012
The models are not wrong. Point me to one line of code that is wrong (you can download the model code and inspect it for yourself). You made an accusation, now back it up or shut up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
10:20 PM on 02/19/2012
The models are bang on. Get informed, start here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/01/2010-updates-to-model-data-comparisons/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:30 PM on 02/03/2012
American Physical Society:
-------------------------------------------------

Emissions of greenhouse gases from human activities are changing the atmosphere in ways that affect the Earth's climate. Greenhouse gases include carbon dioxide as well as methane, nitrous oxide and other gases. They are emitted from fossil fuel combustion and a range of industrial and agricultural processes.

The evidence is incontrovertible: Global warming is occurring. If no mitigating actions are taken, significant disruption­s in the Earth’s physical and ecological systems, social systems, security and human health are likely to occur. We must reduce emissions of greenhouse gases beginning now.

http://www.aps.org/policy/statements/07_1.cfm
03:13 PM on 02/03/2012
Hopefully, they'll be teaching the peer-reviewed, scientific journal published "Climate Science and the Uncertainty Monster", J.A. Curry and P.A. Webster, December 2011 in the US schools.

http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2011BAMS3139.1

Paper neatly summarises the state of climate science, the uncertainties and the way in which the science needs to progress in order to slay the uncertainty monster.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:28 PM on 02/03/2012
Dear new HuffPo account* Jdey123:

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misreprese­nting increasing global temperatur­e trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensib­le lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientific­ally-valid explanatio­n for Bob Carter's gross misreprese­ntation of scientific data.**

Please answer question, jdey123*, instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­­r to several of the most prominent organizati­­ons that are "skeptical­­­" of man-made global warming, including:

* The Heartland Institute
* The Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF)
* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)
* The Science and Environmen­­tal Policy Project (SEPP)
* The Nongovernm­­ental Internatio­­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)
* The Internatio­­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

--------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing

* http://tamino.wordpress.com/2011/07/13/bob-carter-does-his-business/
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
04:41 PM on 02/03/2012
Hopefully, they'll be teaching the peer-revie­wed, scientific journal published "Denialism: what is it and how should scientists respond?" in the US schools.

http://eurpub.oxfordjournals.org/content/19/1/2.full

Paper neatly summarises the state of science denial, science denier tactics and goals, the way in which science deniers have done their best to manufacture doubt with respect to established science from smoking-causes-cancer denial to climate science denial.
09:49 PM on 01/31/2012
Alright, let's put one ridiculous conspiracy to rest.

Commonly, deniers try to accuse the climate science community of bias towards AGW, rejecting anything from a denier and perpetuating this an AGW myth to get more grant money.

If you have ever tried to publish anything in a science journal, you would know this is completely absurd. Scientists are constantly trying to disprove each other. THAT is what gets them more money, advancing science. If someone had conclusive evidence against AGW, that research would get MORE in grants because it is more controversial. Who wouldn't love to know that our carbon emissions actually don't have any dire ramifications!? That fact is, there is no data that supports that AGW does not infact exist. Of course, you can't predict every aspect of it, but all of the data indicates it has and will continue to affect our climate, not to mention our provable science shows our world's oceans (the biggest carbon sink) lose their effectiveness to retain CO2 and other gases (oh say oxygen?) as it heats causing a positive feedback.

As a graduate degree holding geologist, I can confidently say there is no debate. AGW exists, and checking my handle should give you an idea of why I have every reason not to admit this.
02:34 AM on 02/01/2012
Of course, you can't predict every aspect of it.

My understanding of the myth is that you can't predict the temperature in the short term (i.e. < 30 years) due to the signal (climate sensitivity) being obscured by the noise (internal natural variation). There's no clear explanation as to why it takes 30 years for the signal to emerge from the noise, when the maximum length of time that the longest natural forcing agent (solar cycle) covers is about 13 years. Climate "scientists" seem unconcerned about trying to unravel the complexity of the climate that prevents near term predictions being accurately made. They have a section for near time predictions in AR5 but the "scientists" will just fudge the issue by producing bell charts and talking about probabilities rather than specifics.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:42 AM on 02/01/2012
Prominent Global Warming "Skeptic" Hides The Incline

Dear new HuffPo account* Jdey123:

Isn't prominent global warming "skeptic" Dr. Bob Carter committing de facto global warming fraud by misrepresenting increasing global temperature trend lines as flat?**

Isn't that like a climate science scam, a global warming hoax, a blatant and indefensible lie?

If you disagree please provide a scientifically-valid explanation for Bob Carter's gross misrepresentation of scientific data.**

Bob Carter is a leader of and/or major contributo­r to several of the most prominent organizati­ons that are "skeptical­­" of man-made global warming, including:

* The Heartland Institute

* The Global Warming Policy Project (GWPF)

* The Science and Public Policy Institute (SPPI)

* The Science and Environmen­tal Policy Project (SEPP)

* The Nongovernm­ental Internatio­nal Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC)

* The Internatio­nal Climate Science Coalition (ICSC)

Please answer question, jdey123*, instead of continuing to run away from it - thank you.

------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

** http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2011/07/bob_carters_trend_lines.php
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:54 AM on 02/01/2012
Addressing part of new HuffPo sock puppet* Jdey123's latest Gish Gallop**:

Jdey123: "My understand­ing... There's no clear explanatio­n as to why it takes 30 years for the signal to emerge from the noise"

Please explain specifically why you "understand" that the minimum time interval is 30 years to scientifically assess the anthropogenic global warming signal - thank you.

------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

** Gish Gallop: "A debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised... It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
02:34 AM on 02/01/2012
Ok, so if we accept that the signal doesn't emerge above the noise for 30 years, then can we expect a clear prediction for periods over 30 years? No, the "scientists" say, because we can't predict what the emissions that mankind will have produced will be by then. There are now over 30 scenarios that the IPCC has specified that can be used to model emissions scenarios. Why we need so many, when clearly a lot of them are highly unlucky to happen is not explained. Having so many just confuses people. I still see articles saying that "scientists' have predicted 6.4C by 2100 (even though that's the extreme end of the worst emissions scenario). Also unexplained, is given that we have a global temperature record going back to 1880 (131 years), why the value for the signal (climate sensitivity) can not be accurately determined by hindcasting. This suggests that we don't have to wait 30 years for the signal to emerge from the noise but 100s of years.

So, we have a "science" which can't tell us what the climate will be ever. i.e. it's to all practical purposes completely useless.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:59 AM on 02/01/2012
Addressing part of new HuffPo sock puppet* Jdey123's latest Gish Gallop:

"Ok, so if we accept that the signal doesn't emerge above the noise for 30 years..."

Ok, so explain exactly where you got that 30 years number from.

------------------
* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
10:14 AM on 02/01/2012
How often have you seen the weather wrongly predicted? Now try doing that 30 years out. Impossible. Why?

There are way too many factors to perfectly model each. Climate models are gross representations of what may happen based on datasets that do not have resolution based on our world. Your argument that because they have so many models can be likened to being mad no one has come up with a computer program to predict the stock market. You will NEVER have enough data, computing power, and full understanding of all the earth's processes to model it to a resolution to predict exact rates of warming. You can however make best guesses and probabilities.

Another analogy, geologists drilling for oil never know they will hit oil 100% until they drill. You can have tons of data around it in a field, spend years making models to predict every aspect of the petroleum system, and drill it perfectly, you still never know because you can't see it. This is why oil companies have to do risk assessments basing all their economics on probabilities before drilling that $300 million well.

Without actually time traveling to the future, you will never know the exact outcome, and why keeping multiple hypothesis is a common practice in science.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:15 PM on 01/31/2012
TO SAY AND DEFEND the stupid argument that mankind's (and womankind0 activities as we consume resources does not affect climate is just that S...T...U...P...I...D..!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
07:49 PM on 01/30/2012
Jdey123 says: "A theory requires a scientist to make definite prediction­s and for observatio­ns to match the prediction­s.">>

And climate science has done this exceedingly well. Observe:

***
"Global Climate Models have successfully predicted:

That the globe would warm, and about how fast, and about how much.
That the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere would cool.
That nighttime temperatures would increase more than daytime temperatures.
That winter temperatures would increase more than summer temperatures.

Polar amplification (greater temperature increase toward the poles).
Arctic would warm faster than the Antarctic.
The magnitude (0.3 K) and duration (two years) of the cooling from the Mt. Pinatubo eruption.
A retrodiction for Last Glacial Maximum sea surface temperatures...

The amount of water vapor feedback due to ENSO.
The response of southern ocean winds to the ozone hole.
The expansion of the Hadley cells.
The poleward movement of storm tracks.

The rising of the tropopause and the effective radiating altitude.
The clear sky super greenhouse effect from increased water vapor in tropics.
The near constancy of relative humidity on global average.
That coastal upwelling of ocean water would increase."

http://bartonpaullevenson.com/ModelsReliable.html

16 correct predictions. That's a very good track record indeed.

Oh, and I also predicted that right-wingers would whine about the science for political reasons. So make that 17.
02:37 AM on 02/01/2012
Science requires precise predictions. Having a myth that can't produce accurate near or long term predictions even at a global level, let alone a country level which is what peopel care about, is to all practical purposes, useless.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
08:46 AM on 02/01/2012
I reference 16 specific predictions, several showing the human fingerprint on the presently observed, correctly predicted global warming. Your non-responsive mere assertion addresses none of it.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
09:03 AM on 02/01/2012
Science (August 1975)

Climatic Change: Are We on the Brink of a Pronounced Global Warming?

Wallace S. Broecker

Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and Department of Geological Sciences, Columbia University

If man-made dust is unimportant as a major cause of climatic change, then a strong case can be made that the present cooling trend will, within a decade or so, give way to a pronounced warming induced by carbon dioxide... Once this happens, the exponential rise in the atmospheric carbon dioxide content will tend to become a significant factor and by early in the next century will have driven the mean planetary temperature beyond the limits experienced during the last 1000 years.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/189/4201/460

------------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing
http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/
This American
An end to all this nonsense
12:37 AM on 01/29/2012
This is the reason that we cannot compete with the Chinese. Their students learn real science. chemistry, physics, biology, and advanced mathematics. We have allowed the collectivists to turn our education system into an indoctrination program. This is a disgrace.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
03:21 PM on 01/29/2012
TA: "Their students learn real science."

As is the case with the science behind any established scientific theory including for example evolution and plate tectonics, the overwhelming scientific evidince supporting man-made global warming is real science.
This American
An end to all this nonsense
07:10 PM on 01/29/2012
It is not possible to evaluate a complex theory such as AGW without FIRST being reasonably competent in science and math. Teaching AGW to high school students is political indoctrination, not science education. At the same time this nonsense is being taught in U.S. high schools, Chinese students are learning the science and math that will prepare them for jobs that are better paying and more available than the job of community organizer.
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
08:37 PM on 01/29/2012
TA: "It is not possible to evaluate a complex theory such as AGW without FIRST being reasonably competent in science and math. Teaching AGW to high school students is political indoctrina­tion, not science education."

Yeah man, and by that "logic" the complex theories of Evolution and Plate Tectonics should not be taught in schools either.

Science denier rhetoric is stupefying.
ubrew12
that crazy uncle from Amarcord
11:53 PM on 01/29/2012
I think you and your science-denying ilk are the reason we can't compete with the Chinese.
Those Chinese students who learn physics, etc?
They are working in the worlds most heavily funded alternative energy program.

I don't ACTUALLY expect you to get what that means...
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:31 PM on 01/28/2012
U.S. National Academy of Sciences (2010)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

There is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon­, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanation­s…

From a philosophical perspective, science never proves anything… because science is fundamentally based on observations. Any scientific theory is thus, in principle, subject to being refined or overturned by new observations.

In practical terms, however, scientific uncertainties are not all the same. Some scientific conclusions or theories have been so thoroughly examined and tested, and supported by so many independent observations and results, that their likelihood of subsequently being found to be wrong is vanishingly small. Such conclusions and theories are then regarded as settled facts. This is the case for the conclusions that the Earth system is warming and that much of this warming is very likely due to human activities.

http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=12782
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:29 PM on 01/28/2012
Addressing another part of new sock puppet* jdey123's Gish Gallop**:

jdey123: "Given that the scientific basis for this hypothesis..."

AGW is an established scientific theory:

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-and-theory.html

Jdey123: "...is based purely on the reliabilit­y of climate models."

Deceptive.

If by "models" you mean "established scientific theory" then yes. If you instead mean computer models that not correct - AGW theory is predates computers by several decades.

--------------
* http://www.monbiot.com/2011/02/23/robot-wars/

** Gish Gallop: "A debating technique that involves drowning the opponent in such a torrent of half-truths, lies, and straw-man arguments that the opponent cannot possibly answer every falsehood that has been raised... It is named after creationism activist and professional debater Duane Gish."
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop
photo
Publicola
Reality has a scientific bias
01:15 PM on 01/28/2012
Conservative Climate Scientist Dr. Barry Bickmore:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve recently been involved with other scientists and scholars in Utah trying to stop the spread of outright lies, half-truths, abuses of data, and distortions about climate change.  Much of this disinformation is coming from (or through) some Republican members of the Utah Legislature...

I'm a Republican myself, and it galls me that my own party has locally fallen for a bunch of conspiracy theories and scientifically incompetent trash. In my opinion, something has to be done to save the party from disaster in the long run...

Democracy depends on accurate information being readily available to the public, and I see people who propagate such disinformation campaigns as enemies of Democracy.

http://bbickmore.wordpress.com/about-this-blog/
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dardedar
Not here to play patty cake...
07:27 PM on 01/30/2012
Excellent.
03:59 AM on 02/18/2012
I am not a Republican
So why dont you start by telling the basic truths
The planet has been warmer in the last 4 interglacial periods
The Medieval warm period was warmer than today
We are reaching the peak of the warm period
.And we havent the slighest idea what the carbon levels were in the previous warm peaks
Unless you want to use the plant stomata.But that might blow your hypotheses out of the water.
In addition it would be informative that living things do better in warm climates.
That would be a nice start for the truth.