CONTROVERSIAL TEACHING: A new law in Tennessee will protect teachers who decline to instruct students on the science underlying the modern understanding of global warming.
Image: Wikimedia Commons/Labpluto123
Tennessee soon will have a law granting public school teachers the right to challenge climate science in their classrooms.
Gov. Bill Haslam (R) of Tennessee declined to act on a measure yesterday that would formally allow teachers to challenge "the teaching of some scientific subjects," including global warming, evolution and human cloning. Without the governor's signature, the bill becomes law by default later this month.
"The bill received strong bipartisan support, passing the House and Senate by a three-to-one margin, but good legislation should bring clarity and not confusion," Haslam said in a statement. "My concern is that this bill has not met this objective."
Haslam said he thought that the bill would not change the already-established curriculum in the state's public schools.
The legislation created a stir among civil liberty advocates in a state famous for the "Scopes Monkey Trial," where a teacher was found guilty in the 1920s for teaching evolution in schools. Tennessee now becomes the second state after Louisiana to formally enact a rule protecting teachers who challenge science.
The bill was publicly opposed by the American Civil Liberties Union and several scientific organizations such as the Tennessee Science Teachers Association (ClimateWire, April 10). Three members of the National Academy of Sciences wrote in The Tennessean before the governor's decision that the Tennessee Legislature was rolling "the clock back to 1925."
"We respect Governor Haslam for showing leadership in not signing this legislation. But that doesn't change the fact that Tennessee now has a law on the books essentially granting permission for teachers to violate the First Amendment by introducing their own personal religious beliefs on the origin of life into the classroom," said Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee.
Reprinted from Climatewire with permission from Environment & Energy Publishing, LLC. www.eenews.net, 202-628-6500
See what we're tweeting about
108 Comments
Add CommentWhy would the sicentific community be opposed to anything in science being challenged? It's the very essence of science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPresident Obama was sworn in on a Bible. He attends prayer meetings and claims to seek advice from a dead-guy-on-a stick. Why aren't these groups up in arms against that?
"Why would the sicentific community be opposed to anything in science being challenged? It's the very essence of science"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's ok if things are scientifically challenged, but I think it is improbable that this is how this law will be used most of the time.
(R)Governor Haslam, in evolution, would be classified as a Neanderthal. There is an Amendment that says "Separation of Church and State". Creationism is a religious belief and has no place being taught in schools. Global warming is a scientific fact and a low grade teacher should have no power to over rule that fact and downplay it out of existence. These are the idiots that are going to be teaching your children...are you okay with that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnd the dumb dumb tree branches out
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem is not that science is being challenged, it is what it is being challenged with. If logical questions are being posed, it is appropriate. If the challenge comes from restating ancient faith-based fables it is not appropriate, both from a scientific and separation-of-church-and-state perspective. Plain and simple. This is just another one of those situations where a state has to be reminded what country they are a part of.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTrust me, a lot of us are. With an election looming, Obama can't isolate religious voters.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEveryone seems so concerned that this will put students back in science, but has anyone thought that the table can be turned on these conservative idiots? I wonder how much controversy this bill will bring when a teacher, who is either atheist or agnostic, takes advantage of the law and critiques the differences between a scientific theory and the religious views of that topic, exposing the ludicrousness religion conveys, especially in a gifted student program? The teacher will be protected by this law, so no matter how much outrage the school or parents would have, there would be no repercussions. This door can swing both ways!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience being challenged by scientists is the essence of science. Science being challenged by public school teachers with an agenda is the essence of stupidity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSlow down, everyone - read the actual legislation (link in the article), which is actually not so bad. It only permits teachers to "help students understand, analyze, critique and review in an objective manner the scientific strengths and scientific weaknesses of existing scientific theories covered in the course being taught" and to encourage students to "respond appropriately and respectfully to differences of opinion about controversial issues," which include evolution, global warming, etc., so as to "develop critical thinking skills." It does NOT permit the teaching of ID or any other non-scientific theory, nor does it permit any teacher to refuse to teach any particular scientific topic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't get me wrong; the bill was clearly pushed by the anti-science crazies, looking for any tiny victory they could get; and the governor is clearly correct to say that the law doesn't add significant clarity to what teachers can and can't do. And for those reasons alone, he should veto it. But at the end of the day, this particular law is just not the end of the world.
So is it the federal government who shall do the reminding of the states, as to which country they are a part of?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the faction of people and politicians that would permit this to happen in Tennessee were to gain control of the federal government, would you then think they had the right to tell your state that it’s educational system must present creationism, intelligent design, or the 6000 year old Earth ‘theory’ as viable and valid alternatives to your current science curriculum?
I believe the States’ authority should govern here. To allow otherwise opens the door to even greater federal control. Federal control is fine, so long as the politicians in control are in agreement with your philosophy and beliefs, but that will not always be the case. Our nation is roughly equally divided on such matters as religion, science and many other matters impacting our individual and national rights and freedoms. You never know who will be elected and what crazy things the elected will do after given the power to implement the changes each may feel is only right and fair.
Allowing the States to retain the authority not explicitly given the federal government by our constitution ensures diversity of thought, and freedom of, and from, religion far more than giving the national government more power to dictate to the states.
Agreed. We should keep religion out of schools and schools out of religion and these stupid moronic conservatives out of political office with their religious and anti-environment agendas. Now I don't know what an atheist teacher would teach, but whatever it is, it has no place in schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also agree with 'lamorpa'. Every now and then the feds have to come in and tell the states where the line is drawn according to the Constitution and when a state like Tenn. crosses that line, it needs to be put back in place or chaos will prevail and our children will turn into conservative morons and idiots.
I absolutely agree with you! Next we will have book burning. Orwell's "1984" is here although it's 28 years late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot keep a man(woman or child) in everlasting ignorance ------ that principal is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
I absolutely agree with you! Next we will have book burning. Orwell's "1984" is here although it's 28 years late.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"There is a principal which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments and which cannot keep a man(woman or child) in everlasting ignorance ------ that principal is contempt prior to investigation." Herbert Spencer
This is not about science, it's about belief.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"I believe that science is wrong and the earth if flat."
That is now the law in Tenn.; teachers can now teach like that with impunity.
Those poor misguide people will now have some of the most ignorant children in the world.
And this is how we are going to compete with the rest of the world? No wonder China is going to the moon and we aren’t. No wonder Russia is going to Mars and we aren’t.
By that measure "it is not the end of the world" much is lost, one tiny step at a time. :(
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading the two page bill is essential to commenting on this article.
http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
(the link is the same as the one in the word measure in the article)
What parent would take a job offer in Tennessee knowing that the school system is that backwards? What company would relocate to Tennessee knowing that qualified employees would not relocate to that state if they had school age children or were planning to have children? The education system was critical to my fathers location system when the family emigrated to the US and I doubt the criteria have changed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnce again, reading the two page bill is necessary to comment on this ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/107/Bill/HB0368.pdf
The Bill is "relative to teaching scientific subjects in elementary schools" ... elementary school kids are not yet capable of reasoning at the level necessary to present and debate anything at this magnitude.
I call it child abuse.
I think most of the commenters here easily see through this Trojan Horse of faith-based foolishness, penned by the Discovery (aka Creation "science") Institute. They trotted out the pseudo-science of "intelligent design" and other bogus terms, couched in the language of science, but utterly lacking in evidence, testability and predictive value.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is just another absurd attempt by those indoctrinated buffoons that dominate the dysfunctional "bible-belt" to give their religious world-view legitamacy. It is clearly aimed at evolution... as appropos to Tennessee and the infamous Scopes trial. The law forbidding the teaching of evolution, the foundational and organizing principle of all biological and related sciences, stood on the books in that backward state until 1967!
I've lived in that state and several others in the South... and the public school teachers there are notorious for infusing their religious beliefs openly in what is supposed to be a "science" curriculum. Any kid who dares to think independently would be ostrasized for speaking up... not to mention the courage it would take to question authority. In SW Virginia, if a child questioned "god" as the author of all... the child was equated to "devil worshiper" or "child of satan" (personal experience - wife as substitute teacher and son in elementary school).
America already trails most of the "1st world" in math and science... and this is just another step... backward. Every time religion and science have clashed, the fallacy of a belief in the supernatural in general, or a god created by men... take your pick, is exposed.
There is no Wizard in Oz... and no sky-god in some imagined "heaven"... no ghosts... no angels...no devil or demons. There is an awe-inspiring and humbling Cosmos from whence we all came... and we best start enlightening ourselves and our children to the World of Reality, based on science and reason, not the deceit of religion and faith.
I would accept the inclusion of faith-based beliefs if it was required that they were only mentioned by starting with the phrase, "Some people have personal beliefs, without scientific or logical basis, based on literal interpretations of modern translations of ancient stories which have passed through at least four languages and countless revisions, and are maintained largely for the purpose of the continuation of a theological and bureaucratic organization, which say..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJames Davis, Pleas post the amendment that contains the text "Separation of Church and State".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislol, I wonder what the qualifications are to become a science teacher in TN.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are a lot of issues at play here but as long as the government and the government sponsored scientific community continue their efforts to force feed their version of "global warming" to the public, there will be and should be resistance. The American public can recognize a political charade when it occurs and the reaction may be one of unintended consequences.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis has nothing to do with Federal control over the schools. Read the article, it's a state law. The part of the article that has to do with federal law is about first amendment rights. Public schools should not be using the teachers to push religious agenda in order to dumb down students who might otherwise benefit from proper science training before they get to college.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf teachers base science on religious dogma and not science, but still call it science then the students are getting short changed. Getting short changed is what religion is all about in the first place. Please pass the collection plate it the first rule every church has during weekend services.
I went to parochial schools for the first twelve years of my life and I can honestly say that while the nuns in grammar school never had a clue about real science, the Capuchin monks and Jesuit priests who taught science in high school knew better then to teach creationism over evolution. The students in that high school were admitted based on their scholastic aptitude and grade point average. You can't spoon feed smart kids with junk science. They will eventually turn away from the church when they figure out who is trying to fool them. The highly educated monks and priests knew that much at least.
That is not the case in public schools where half the kids are below average intelligence and quite a few of the teachers. Some of those kids will go on to college and find they are hopelessly out of touch with reality.
Mixing theology and science has always been a huge impediment to progress throughout history. This kind of backward progress is what brought about the crusades and the dark ages that followed. There was no science behind the inquisition.
If there is one fact that cannot be denied it is that half the population is below average intelligence. The half that is are the first ones to call liberals who think outside the box the dumb half while they themselves pass laws to limit new ideas and modern scientific theory.
There is an old cliche that says, "Where ignorance is bliss, 'tis folly to be wise."
"The American public can recognize a political charade when it occurs and the reaction may be one of unintended consequences."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBased on the number of people that don't 'believe' in global warming, it is obvious that they have fallen victim to politics. You would be pompous to think politics is not pushing the right wing agenda.
Saying - "God created you girls, from a man's rib" is not challenging science at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's just making claims, not backed up by anything tangible except hear/say.
What's up with you guys in the States, really?
All of that In God we trust, glorifying the Bible... and in real life no one really cares or just doesn't believe.
Well, if the majority doesn't believe, why bother then?
Singing Flea: Agreed! If you wish to deal in wings. The harder the far left pushes their misguided definition "global warming" the more stronger the far right will react. We shall all be losers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Some of those kids will go on to college and find they are hopelessly out of touch with reality." (singing flea)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! It is when they graduate from the liberal/socialist agenda of today's colleges that they will be out of touch with reality.
I was repsonding to the sugestion that the Federal Government should overide the State Governments in this matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the people of a state want to elect leaders that do this sort of thing, if the people of a state support this type of education(or lack thereof) for their children, they should not be overuled by the Federal government.
If they don't support it, why would they elect these clowns? It is their state, it is their right to localy govern. If they do not agree, it is their right to stay in the state and change it, or relocate to a state more in line with their thinking.
It is not the right of the Federal Government to dictate to the States. There is tremendous danger down that path. Once a government takes authority over anything, they are unlikly to ever surrender it.
The majority electing the Federal polititians may someday agree with the current Tennessee polititians, and, if given the authority, could require all states to present religious doctrine as equal alternative theories in any number of scientific disiplines.
I was repsonding to the sugestion that the Federal Government should overide the State Governments in this matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the people of a state want to elect leaders that do this sort of thing, if the people of a state support this type of education(or lack thereof) for their children, they should not be overuled by the Federal government.
If they don't support it, why would they elect these clowns? It is their state, it is their right to localy govern. If they do not agree, it is their right to stay in the state and change it, or relocate to a state more in line with their thinking.
It is not the right of the Federal Government to dictate to the States. There is tremendous danger down that path. Once a government takes authority over anything, they are unlikly to ever surrender it.
The majority electing the Federal polititians may someday agree with the current Tennessee polititians, and, if given the authority, could require all states to present religious doctrine as equal alternative theories in any number of scientific disiplines.
BoolySpark: "...government sponsored scientific community continue their efforts to force feed their version of "global warming" to the public"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf not by scientific means, by what method do you propose a measure of climate change be made? Nostradamus? Numerological extrapolations based on the Old Testament? Amusing anecdotes?
I never cease to marvel at the portion of the population that, when faced with facts they dislike, insists on killing the messenger and denouncing his message out of hand. Unfortunately, those of us not in that portion of nay-sayers are forced to endure the repercussion and fallout from the inaction that plcates their "consciences".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe simple fact is: we're sown abuse and pollution across the globe, and are now reaping the harvest.
There is an Amendment that says "Separation of Church and State". (No there isn't)Creationism is a religious belief (So too is Evolution)and has no place being taught in schools. Global warming is a scientific fact (Except for the last 15 years) These are the idiots (Takes one to know one? Calling names isn't a sign of intelligence!) are you okay with that?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience being challenged by scientists is the essence of science. Science being challenged by public school teachers with an agenda is the essence of stupidity.(The scopes monkey trial comes to mind here)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy future children are running out of options for their education. Public schools are more religious than private catholic schools and I probably won't have time to home school them. Maybe I'll send them to a boarding school in Sweden for most of their lives.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth Evolution and Global warming should be challenged. Evolution may be part of the story but there are too many unanswered aspects regarding the emergence of life for it to be the whole story. Global Warming is likewise swamped in controvercy and the various arguments for and against should be aired in our schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth Evolution and Global warming should be challenged. Evolution may be part of the story but there are too many unanswered aspects regarding the emergence of life for it to be the whole story. Global Warming is likewise swamped in controvercy and the various arguments for and against should be aired in our schools.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually it is not necessarily an issue of states rights. Every state has a duty to uphold the constitution as a condition of statehood. Evolution and AGW are not religious beliefs as some might be led too believe by religious zealots. The federal government has every right to legislate what is or is not constitutional. States rights end when it is in conflict with the constitution. Why else form a republic in the first place?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree completely, seems to be a common thought theses days....lots of dead messengers out there, with a lot of people with their heads tightly fixed in the sand.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts not happening ....its not happening...its not happening...
No wonder there are so many fat stupid kids in the western world....match their fat stupid parents I guess!
AND, BTW, The earth is FLAT!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you wanted to start a high-tech company (or any business for that matter) would you start it in Tennessee?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisallen:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If you wanted to start a high-tech company (or any business for that matter) would you start it in Tennessee?'
Actually a lot of high tech companies open in Tennessee...more than in some liberal states. 99.99% of technology is unaffected by science that fundies challenge. Companies are attracted to Tennesee's labor force and right to work legislatioin.
Tucker M,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou're quite correct, people are making a mountain out of a molehill.
As for Hedy Weinberg, executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Tennessee, she alas, appears to be unfamiliar with the U.S. Constitution. Here, for her, and those other poor unfortunates who also seem to be ignorant of the facts, is the text:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
The First Amendment restricts the U.S. Federal Congress from engaging in certain unsavory behaviors.
This State Law permits criticism and review of the strengths and weaknesses of certain scientific theories, and they all have strengths and weaknesses. Those who are vehemently opposed to a law that permits criticism and review of the strengths and weaknesses of theories would do well to reflect upon why they are so adamantly opposed to others being permitted to question their beliefs.
Teachers should be allowed to challenge global climate science by legitimate experimentation and analysis, like all research scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut they're teachers. THEY'RE NOT RESEARCH SCIENTISTS.
"Challenging" in this context means withholding facts because they don't feel like teaching something based on a personal bias. If Tennessee teachers know something that the global scientific community missed, by all means share it. But "challenging" by withholding legitimate research based on personal bias is beyond ridiculous. It's criminal. Just not in Tennessee.
This title is wrong. It should read "Tennessee Law Will Allow Teachers to Ignore Climate Science." Unless teachers are actively engaged in cutting edge climate science personally, and the results of their own research challenges the global science community, "challenge" just means "ignore."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thislamorpa: Please read carefully "......sponsored scientific community continue their efforts to force feed their version of "global warming"......key word being version. Please do not put poor Nostradaums in a global warming discussion we may have had a couple since his time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdoctordawg: Teachers do not have ignore climate science. All they have to do is demonstrate the difference between politically driven (and financed) science and independent science. Woe to the teacher or professor who independently challenges the liberal/socialist establishments definition of global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIgnorant religious fanatics will always long for the good old days of the Roman Inquisition.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe failure of scientific community?!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA scientifically based public education intersecting with any religion, that suggests it is a reality, reduces the publicly funded education to an exercise in Art and Philosophy; religion belongs in the home, designated place of worship, or simply kept as a personal matter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat the United States of America is reverting back to a 'dark ages' religious dogma, makes the case that the two southern states have more in common with third world countries, where populations are infused with religious control, than the rest of the USA.
In the United States and it's foreseeable future, changes of separation are beginning to take hold in the name of religion, and is drawing hard philosophical lines on the map of the country. The politics of religion poisons the waters of Science and Education.
Any school with a religious-educational platform is driven by the political agenda of quasi-religious political groups, using the emotional hammer of religion to promote 'dominance over' & 'submission of' the more financially-strapped, under-educated people of the poorer regions of Society; and will keep them there.
Religious dogma presented as scientific reality to the $$poor and under-educated is simply an anachronism trying to survive in the 21st Century.
Religion and deity can helpful during childhood development; can be mentally comforting to those that have been traumatized, isolated, or abused; comforts those severely frightened in their lives, or those frightened at the end of their life; religion can play an important role and has its place.
But Science brings us to the modern world; Science brings us to civilization by way of innovation and creative reality; reduces the spread between classes of people with inventiveness and creative originality.
The evolutionary and revolutionary nature of Science creates a solid base of quantified,qualified, factually-based reality which can be trusted. That Trust promotes an independence of mind, which successive generations of young men and women need to confidently and independently 'think' for themselves; without the many anachronistic snaking primative chains of religious dogma stunting the reach and growth of intelligent life in the 21st Century.....
My first comment was meant to be a reply to the first post. I guess clicking "Reply" on the comment isn't good enough.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving grew up in small-town TN in a traditional working-class Christian family with many generations of Southern blood, this isn't that shocking. TN is (I probably should say was) actually one of the more progressive southern states--particularly around Nashville--but one of the problems is their conservatives are more active than some of the more out-there conservative states. Thankfully the military took me away, along with my extremely out-of-place interest in classical music as a trumpet player, exposing me to many more diverse cultures and different ideas than I would have been if I stuck around as a music major or took over my grandfather's well drilling business. It felt wrong for a while not wanting to ever live there again, breaking many generations of family tradition, but after being there before, during, after the last Presidential election, it wasn't too hard to disown my Southern heritage after the nonsense I saw and heard. This reaffirms my feelings.
To me, anyone that thinks most K-12 public school teachers have the educational background and experience to make these kinds of decisions, are clearly unaware of the level knowledge and dedication of the scientists that are ACTUALLY doing the research. I know it's hard letting someone else to do the thinking for you--even though the people that support nonsense like this tend to do this more than anyone else--but these scientists aren't just doing it for the money or throwing out untested ideas. These are some of the most knowledgeable men and women in the world in their field. This law is along the lines of you wanting to build a high-rise office building for your Fortune 500 company and having most of the world's best architects for every type of office building imaginable giving you plans for a mind-blowing fraction of a penny, yet you decide to draw-up your own plans because you took a basic drafting class in college (and you have with no building experience either) because you think they don't know what they are doing or out to get you.
Way to go Tennessee. Now if you excuse me, a friend of a friend is coming over in a few minutes to remove a cancerous section of my large intestine--she minored in biology (got a BA in art history) 15 years ago and works with my neighbor at UPS. Hey, at least I'm not using Nazi-socialist-atheistic Obamacare, right? Now THAT would be foolish!
Anybody is free to challenge global warming, evolution or whatever. But claiming something as fact or science when it is not would be an outright lie. Schools should guard against teaching lies and falsehood. Teachers can express their ideas and beliefs outside the classroom. But they should only teach what is in the approved textbooks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut,but,but teaching AGW is teaching a religion :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo you are qualified to comment on this subject?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOnly people who agree with you should be allowed to comment. All others must be excluded including scientists who do not agree?
Approved by whom?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAn unexpected win for the tandem forces of hope and ignorance, better known as 'faith'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoolySpark:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about this: It's simple. Stop honking out your personal prejudices and bigotry and using the stupid, made-up "liberal/socialist" <xxx> that you have invented and are afraid of. There are scientists here and science-type thinkers who have points to be made on the basis of science and logic. Your kind of nonsense just takes up space that has to be skipped over in the stream.
Wakeele: Very well though out and written comment. Thanks.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Teach the controversy?" Make my day. I'll tell them about the fake papers the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine sent out. I'll tell them how Frederick Seitz shilled for Big Tobacco, then, when he became too senile to be of use to them, moved to climate denial. I'll tell them about the bogus credentials of climate deniers. Oh, we will have fun.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTell them also about the head of your church. The IPCC. The head of the IPCC Dr Pachauri is a former railway engineer with a PhD in economics he has no qualifications in climate science at all & he is a devout Hindu. So where does he sit in your classification on who qualifies to have an opinion on climate science?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiberals are a curious bunch. They advocate separation of Church and state but vote for a guy who takes the oath of Presidency with his hand on a book dedicated to a dead-guy-on-a-stick. A guy who attends national prayer meetings and claims to seek advice from Jesus.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLiberals have selective outrage. A president who worshiops a mythical being has far more impact on science than a teacher in Tennessee. He's actually making decisions on funding things like medical research that impact real people in their real lives.
Um, Earth to geojellyroll: Everyone votes "for a guy who takes the oath of Presidency with his hand on a book...", etc. Do you have some kind of special vote for a to-be president who is sworn in by a different ceremony or doesn't meet with groups of all kinds and faiths? Are you saying the only kind of president you approve of is one with atheist beliefs? Sounds prejudiced to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat you fail to see is that someone with a more liberal attitude (not even necessarily politics) can hold one belief while still supporting the different beliefs of others. It's called tolerance and inclusion (the opposite of which is bigotry).
Of course opposing views should be part of the subject matter taught. But this should include opposing views of ALL subject matter. Including things like creationism (both sides), religions (all religions, origins, politics of, dissents, etc.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo lamorpa. Science is not about 'tolerance and inclusion'. It is not about fairness. A President who worships mythical beings is being anti-science. A president who takes an oath on a Bible is perpetuating ignorance. A President who attends national prayer meetings and asks Jesus for guidance is being as much 'an idiot' as when liberals use that term to describe teachers in Tennessee.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience and agenda do not mix. I'm prepared to condemn the 'mixing' regardless of whether the mixing is on the left or the right.
No geojellyroll. You are a personal spiritual beliefs bigot. You believe your personal beliefs are not just true for you, but for other people too. Hubristic, egocentric thinking is the problem here, not disagreement with your particular personal thoughts. I do not subscribe to any deities myself, but I am not so deluded as to believe I am right for all others. Science is its own world; not incompatible with spiritual belief systems, unless you try to 'scientifically' 'prove' them. When someone mistakes their personal spiritual beliefs for universal truth, they cannot be correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot at all. Everyone has the right to their own opinion--including you and I--but depending on the situation, it could carry no weight. In all reality, no comment on this article carries any significant weight. Even if you are a practicing PhD climate scientist or someone that didn't graduate high school working at McDonalds, this--or really any faceless internet commenting forum--isn't a creditable place for any form of information or debate. Without verified credentials and authentication of who you are, the comment section of any website just functions as an opinion and rant venue. I could find someone that said something I don't believe or agree, but in this environment, it rarely does any good to try to convince them otherwise. This being a very geeky science magazine's website (of which I am a subscriber), it does usually attract a bit more contemplative vistor base over, say, YouTube.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo what I'm trying to say is that we all can have opinions, but in the end, we have to rely on the experts in that particular field of science (and more specifically on the very topic at hand) to have the final word. Otherwise, what is the point in having experts on any subject. In an ideal world, you if disagree with what an expert says you could ask them directly to explain their reasoning, regardless of your background. Really the mandatory 13 years of school we get in the U.S. should prepare everyone with enough knowledge and reasoning skills to go about and get the answers to their questions, but in reality it's more of an understaffed daycare than an institution of education.
K-12 teachers are there to teach the knowledge we've amassed as a people. Research scientists are the ones working directly with the evidence. A pediatrician and a cardiac surgeon are both medical doctors, but it's best they don't switch roles unless they are active at both. If a high school teacher is also a practicing research scientist in the field they teach, then they are qualified to speak from experience in the classroom.
It's always good to question what we know about the world around us, but if you are just opposing something because what a small group of people might have said thousands of years ago, and aren't trying to better understand what you are opposing or why, you're not really adding to the situation. The great thing about science is, we're still trying to prove Newton, Einstein and every other scientist wrong--and it's encouraged too. Sometimes it takes hundreds of years, but we still keep testing what we know.
Lamorpa.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWrong.
Just because Obanma is elected or the state legislatures in Tennessee are elected doesn't make their belief in mythical beings any less crap. Science is not about tolerating the accepting ignorance. Ignorance is just that...ignorance despite what ideological spin is put on it.
The same rules of scientific methodolgy apply whether one is in Nazi Germany, Marxist Russia or a democratic western nation. If the subject at hand is impacted by social ideology, whether it be oppression or political correctness, then it leaves the realm of science.
Obama claims to talk to a dead-guy-on-astick. As a scientist I call that stupidity. Creationists deny evolution...as a scientist I also call that that stupidity. As a scientist I don't need to tolerate stupidity. Ignorance is ignorance.
But you only rely on people who share your view, like the head of the IPCC regardless of the fact that he does not hold the qualifications of many of the scientists who oppose your views. You do not see the irony?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, geojellyroll, you are absolutely smarter and more enlightened than every single one of the six billion theistic believing people around the world and the billions before them. Every single one. You know everyone is wrong and they are just a temporary biological process and there is only a physical world. They're all deluded fools. (or else you are a conceited, bigoted fool yourself - and I'm sure you're not signing up for that)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmmmm. 6 billion to one. What are the odds?
Make it 6 billion to two. That doubles the odds. In other words a one hundred percent increase. Insignificant over all? A bit like doubling the quantity of a rare gas really.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLamorpa has no scientific background so I can understand his lack of understanding of what science is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience isn't a popularity contest.
A billion to one or a trillion to one. In science those numbers are meaningless.
Science has not proven the existence of Lamorpa's mythical beings. There is no need for science to prove the non-existence of Lamorpas mythical god (or Leptechaun's, the Easter bunny, etc.)
100% of a population believing the world is flat doesn't make it flat. Science is about verifiable evidence.
Approved by the state government and public or private accrediting agencies. I understand this is not the job of the US Department of Education like in other countries. But there must be a regulatory body to ensure schools don't teach falsehood.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't think you understand what I've been trying to say.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf I'm not an expert on the subject, it doesn't really what MY view is in the end. I generally try to keep a neutral point of view on any subject until I have a good understand of it. I could have the opinion that black holes are where my missing socks go or that low tides increase abortions, but that doesn't do me or anyone else any good (unless I just like living in a fantasy world--which many do). I haven't done rigorous research on either or know of anyone else that has, so I keep my opinions about that stuff light or too myself.
It also doesn't really matter what field the head of any science organization is from; it's the people DOING AND ANALYSIS the research that matters most.
There are obvious truths that are virtually universally agreed. The earth is round. When I was a child, medical colleges were teaching student doctors to prescribe tobacco smoking as a cure for patients with bad nerves. This was taught as fact. The military in many countries issued cigarettes or tobacco rations to their troops. Today, the vast majority of teachers believe in the IPCC as an infallible source of information on climate. They teach it as fact. Without any disclaimers. That is dangerous. It ignores the glaring holes in the theory of AGW.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess it is geojellyroll's mythical sixth sense that allows him to divine my lack of scientific background? (inaccurate as that is) But scientifically-based clairvoyance aside, someone with a high school level of exposure to science (or at least that level of understanding) would know that you can't prove a negative. Proof that deities "don't" exist? It's an oxymoron. It's a belief no different than the belief that they do exist. More replies seem to just mean more nonsense. Quit while your only a little behind.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe need to regulate the quality of education is precisely to avoid teachers from teaching their mere opinion as facts. The regulatory body must seek expert advice. The experts may turn out to be wrong but that is part of the learning process in science. We should avoid mixing politics-advocacy and science-education.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, AGW is not a science subject in high schools or even in non-science colleges. As such, it must be viewed as an advocacy that students may or may not follow.
Several commentators on this blog are advocating that teachers should teach and scientists 'do science'. As a lower school teacher I would not have a problem with this if the scientists conducting research on important issues such as AGW stuck to the basics of their profession. Basic rules of science that I teach my students include 'The Principles of Science' and 'The Scientific Method'. If you are not aware of these then please Google them. Basically for the Scientific Method there are 5 steps.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1) From observations of the world identify a question or problem for investigation. (e.g. AGW)
2) Develop hypotheses to explain the phenomenon. (e.g. Human produced CO2 etc released to atmosphere creating greenhouse effect)
3) Devise experiments to test the hypotheses. All valid scientific hypotheses MUST be testable. (This one is a little trickier. To be a 'fair test' only one element can be changed at a time with the rest of the conditions remaining the same. I don't know how climate scientists achieved this with all the variables that come into play.)
4) Analyse results and determine the degree to which they fit the predictions of each hypothesis. (Major problem here. Several previously reputable climate scientists and organisations didn't like it when their modelling didn't fit reality and modified data to suit their own agendas.)
5) Further modify hypotheses and repeat experiments. (This step has been skipped by many climate scientists who are hell-bent on proving humans are causing changes to climate and won't consider other possibilities)
The major issues I have with AGW at present are:
a) The Earth has not experienced abnormal warming for the past ten years - this does not fit with most modelling
b) When scientists were asked for their data and formulae / calculations by other scientists wishing to verify their work there were problems with the data being lost, manipulated or cherry-picked with some refusing point-blank to have their work scrutinised. Freedom of Information requests were ignored.
c) AGW believers in positions of authority have used their powers to block the publishing of papers which contradicted their point of view - very unhealthy for the field of science I would believe.
As a teacher I will continue to teach that there is a belief that man MAY be contributing to changes in climate however the evidence is nowhere near conclusive and the debate definitely is not settled.
Two of my children are school teachers. Whilst studying to become teachers, their university tutors without exception expounded on the AGW narrative. The assignments they had to submit did not brook any opinions or questions that strayed from their teachings. Now they are teachers, they tell me what they are directed to teach. I also have multiple grand children. They tell me what they are taught. The school curriculums in Australia are almost universally promoting the tenets espoused by the Greens & the IPCC. No hints in the propaganda they have to push that the claims remain unproven to the satisfaction of many who have serious questions that remain unanswered. Fortunately, children are also listening to their parents & I am told are given to derisive hoots when presented with outrageous claims. Many remember the claim that Australia would never again have floods that would run our rivers & fill our dams. The collapse of the AGW agenda, at least in Australia, is imminent.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"... When someone mistakes their personal spiritual beliefs for universal truth, they cannot be correct."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, it is true that when people make mistakes, they cannot be correct. However, as that is true about all mistakes, that does not strengthen your argument in this instance.
"... A billion to one or a trillion to one. In science those numbers are meaningless."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA six-sigma probability is an accepted basis for a claim of proof in Quantum Physics. I believe the LHC has the Higgs up to a 3 sigma so far.
Your position is scientifically unassailable. Only when climate science follows these principles will it regain credibility. At present it is dragging other branches of science down with it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChryses wrote: "However, as that is true about all mistakes, that does not strengthen your argument in this instance."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this'Strength' of an assertion that the use of science cannot absolutely 'prove' or 'disprove' the validity of a belief in deities or their non-existence? I'd suspect I'm on pretty firm ground there. You have a better chance of 'proving' that it is unknowable.
"would know that you can't prove a negative"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI should remind you that science is full of proofs of a negative. Mathematics for openers is full of proofs of negatives.
You can not build a quadrilateral with 4 sides of length 2, 3 , 4 and 10 of any unit of length you care to mention be it inches, centimeters or miles. I can prove it and it is a negative.
jsobry: True enough for mathematics. I should have more clearly stated, "you cannot 'prove' the non-existence of something"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(actually, at first, I thought you were trying to say something about proving negative _numbers_. Those are known to exist. LOL)
There are a few problems with your statements regarding science in general and climate theory in particular.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor openers let's address climate theory first. There was no hypothesis that said that there is a thing called AGW. There was and is and will be a hypothesis and a theory that sunshine, CO2 and other GHGs, orbital parameters and a host of other things determine the temperature at the surface of the earth to various extents.
Because humans are adding CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere there is a phenomenon called AGW. The theory states that CO2 affects the surface temperature regardless of where the CO2 comes from, be it volcanoes, the ocean, decaying plant matter or fossil fuel burning by humans or anything else. The theory also states that if CO2 and other GHGs decrease the temperature will drop all else being equal and conversely if CO2 etc. increases the temperature will increase as well. All of this applies to all other factors determining the surface temperature of the earth. That is the theory of climate and climate change. AGW is just a prediction of what will happen to the climate if we change that particular parameter based on climate science.
As to science in general you make some incorrect remarks.
Your point 2 states that human produced CO2 creates the greenhouse effect. This is blatently not true. The greenhouse effect has been present for the last 4 billion years or more regardless of humans.
Point 3 states that to have a valid test you can only change one variable at a time. That is equally untrue.
I can and do change many variables all of the time. So do scientists in general. There is no way you could approach the real world unless you change many variables all of the time. That is how reality works plain and simple.
Also it is not true that all hypothesis must be testable.
Theoretical physics has lots of hypotheses that are currently untestable. That is why they remain hypothesis.
Also testing the climate of the earth is not a wise thing to do as we are living inside this climate. On the other hand we are conducting a test of sorts by injecting lots of GHGs in the atmosphere ... perhaps not such a wise move.
Point 4. There is absolutely no problem with changing the hypothesis if the data do not fit reality. In fact a lot can be learnt in changing the data to fit the hypothesis as well. This does not mean that changing the data will produce a valid theory. So changing the data or the hypothesis is not necessarily a bad thing.
I also do not know how you can tell previously reputable scientists from ??
Yes I can.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPoint 5. Again there is no way we can test or experiment with the climate as previously mentioned. There is in fact an international agreement that forbids precisely that. This leaves open the question whether adding CO2 etc. to the atmosphere is a breach of that agreement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSubsequentally you propose some arguments why you disagree with AGW. I happen to disagree ...
a)There is ample evidence that warming is continuing. It may be a little slower or a little faster but the trend is definitely there. In fact AP (associated press) handed the climate data for the last 10 years or so to some statisticians without mentioning where the data came from or that it had anything to do with the climate. The statisticians came back and said that there was a definite trend of increase in the numbers i.e. temperatures are rising.
b) There is lots of data freely available on the internet that you can study and investigate. None of them are perfect but they all show warming regardless of what a particular scientist may have said about FOI or anything else. In fact I usually do not give a damn WHO said what when and where. I only care about the statements being made. If the statement is true then it does not matter who made it and equally if the statement is false.
That is the scientific approach.
Finally.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisc) This is hardly worth a comment so I will comment profusely. I do not know if there are AGW believers and that statement has no meaning whatsoever. You can believe whatever you like but even if it happens to be true it is not science.
As to scientists having fights about this or that you should read a little about the history of science. I can tell you that the Bernouillie brothers went at each other and other scientists including cheating and everything else. It is safe to say that if the brothers had had access to nuclear weapons none of us would be here.
Mr. Isaac Newton picked a fight with Mr. Leibniz the like of which we have not seen in a long time. Indeed from the very start of science there were all kinds of really mean things done without any justification but hey ... who am I to judge other people.
The fact of the matter is that scientists are human beings. I know of none that are not. They have all the characteristics of human beings and on top of that they sometimes produce really useful science and knowledge. Let me give you an example. Mr. Isaac Newton reportedly wrote 1 million words about chemistry (it was then known as alchemy) full of utter gibberish and totally useless.
He engaged in mysticism, various theories about the bible and what I can only call superstition. When he became England's director of the currency he attended every execution of every money falsifier. Was he depraved?
Is that a reason to deny his fantastic work in mathematics and physics? I do not think so.
The statements made by Mr. Newton regarding math and physics will stand forever more. His other utterances we will kindly ignore.
So it is with present scientists whether they like it or not.
Thus in my opinion and in the opinion of Mr. Poincarre the famous french mathematician and physicist etc. both ad hominem attacks and pro hominem attacks are utterly useless. Because of human psychology etc. we heap praise on certain individuals and issue Nobel prizes and other rewards. That is at it is.
But the mere fact of a Nobel prize or a severe criticism of a person has nothing whatsoever to do with the validity or the veracity of that person's statements.
Only the statements matter. Everything else is just anthropocentric gibberish, useful ( I would say very useful) in some cases but always irrelevant as to the truth.
My understanding was that the amount of CO2 produced by humans over the past many years has increased substantially and according to many climate scientists' predictions and models we should have experienced increasing global temperatures as a result. This has not occurred which is why I question the accuracy of their hypothesis / theory regarding human activity impacting on global climate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this2) I should have said contributes to Greenhouse Effect, was conserving space
3) I didn' write the principles of science and 'a fair test' but can understand why they are important and relevant. I know there are many constantly changing variables which affect our climate, making the job of climate scientists very difficult if not impossible in some instances. The issue is that some climate scientists have stated that CO2 released by humans is causing global warming yet this does not match with past and present temperature data. Some of these scientists have said they are disappointed that they can't see a correlation between human produced CO2 and world temperatures.
According to the 'Principles of Science' all valid scientific hypotheses must be be testable. If you can't test it then it is not valid. These are not my words, this is what is taught in universities worldwide.
4)This is where most of the trouble starts. When the data did not match the hypothesis, the scientists should have gone back to the hypothesis and changed it which is step 5. There is no problem with scientists working out the data they should have seen if their hypothesis was to be proved correct. However some have permanently 'adjusted' data and deliberately chosen not to use some data purely to make it fit with their hypothesis. They have then refused to allow others to scrutinize their work. This is dishonest, a word that should never be used in the same sentence as scientist.
The climate scientists and organizations which I believe have had the most damage done to their reputations were mentioned in the East Anglia emails.
From a very early age my parents impressed on me the importance of the field of science. In my classroom I thoroughly enjoy observing my students experiencing many of the wonders of the world and hope some of them will progress through university to become scientists. I just hope the rogues who are not doing the right thing by science are weeded out before permanent damage is done to this field. Maybe it's already too late.
You seem to forget that it is NOT ONLY CO2 that determines the surface temperature. While CO2 may be increasing other factors determining temperature may be decreasing. For example the sun has just come out of a fairly long (~3 years) low point in it's radiation. This had a definite effect on temperatures. Nevertheless temperatures have been increasing allthough somewhat slower. If there were to be a large volcanic eruption you can almost bet that temperatures would drop for a couple of years like happened in 1991(or 1992) with mount Pinatubo in the Philipines. The large emissions of various aerosols etc. from China and India industries are currently suppressing temperatures. There are many ways in which the effects of increasing CO2 can be tempered by other things in the atmosphere. However on the whole temperatures are increasing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFrom a scientific point of view it does not matter how or by who or what CO2 is increased. The fact of the matter is that high CO2 in the atmosphere causes warming and low CO2 causes cooling all else being equal. To wit during the cold phases of ice age cycles CO2 was ~180ppm and during warm phases CO2 was ~280ppm .
This has been shown to be the case for very many times in the paleoclimate record going back millions of years. It is always possible that all these cases were coincidences but in view of the fact that CO2 has been tested in the laboratory and has been proven to act as an insulator it becomes very hard to think that we are looking at nothing but coincidences.
It is scientifically always possible that water will not boil when it's temperature reaches 100 degrees Celsius at standard pressure etc. but it is highly unlikely in the extreme. You may have to wait for billions of years to witness that event.
Finally keep in mind that warming (or heating) takes time and if you think you are allready seeing all the warming or if you think that CO2 should instantly increase the temperatures you are mistaken. But according to current climate theory there is more warming coming even if we stop all CO2 emissions forthwith.
None of this science has anything to do with humans. It is in fact just a coincidence that for the first time in 4.6 billion years of the existence of this planet there are 7 billion people adding CO2 and other GHGs to the atmosphere. It would be passing strange that that fact has no effect on the CO2 content of the atmosphere for the very first time in the history of this planet.
"... You have a better chance of 'proving' that it is unknowable..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't be silly. There is neither a formal proof nor a formal disproof of God.
Consider the following totally unscientific thought experiment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe think that expanding human activity and progress is in large measure due to humans exploiting various forms of energy. We started out with fire proceeded to animals, water dams and windmills improved our control of fire and introduced steam engines continued with steam and made electricity and developed internal combustion engines etc. etc. etc.
Most of all this happened in the last two centuries.
Now think about the 20th century. Human development was slowed by WW1 and the influenza epidemic of 1918 then we had the depression of 1929 then we had WW2 and the purges in the Soviet Union and China. Just to mention a few things that impeded our progress. The death toll was in the millions well exceeding 100 million.
Now imagine that none of this bad things had happened.
Then paradoxically we would be in a much worse situation than we are now with respect to AGW. For we would have progressed and used energy much more faster and most of that would have been fossil fuels with the consequent CO2. So in an almost crually bizarre way we are in fact very lucky that these bad things happened as far as the climate situation is concerned. Give it some thought.
As a science teacher that would be a good way to teach the kids how to think. I expect that would probably be forbidden by law somewhere.
Why does the title of this article remind me of the Country Song that speaks about "When the Tennessee Stud met the Tennesse Man"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnyway back to your observations.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou seem not to want to accept that the global temperatures may temporarily drop notwithstanding the increase in CO2. This was proven beyond a shadow of a doubt by Mr. Jim Hansen in one of his many papers. The occasion was the 1991 mount Pinatubo eruption and the cooling was in the order of -1 degree Fahrenheit (peak) and lasted for a couple or 3 years in total. This was followed in 1998 by one of the hottest years on record.
So if you look at the data over a short enough term you will see cooling if you look a little further over another short term you will see warming.
But if you look at the data over a sufficiently long term, say 30 years, you will see a warming trend.
And if you look over the last 160 years you will see a warming trend.
So notwithstanding the graph you saw showing perhaps some cooling the overall trend is warming and the warming is largely due to increases in CO2, CH4, H2O, NOx , O3 in the troposphere and various CFCs all of them called Greenhouse gases.
The various predictions made by some scientists regarding global warming will almost certainly come to pass. It may not be today but it will happen.
If we continue to add CO2 etc. the eventual and subsequent warming will happen. It is a slam dunk unless there is a huge countervailing element in the atmosphere that lasts a long time. For example repeated volcanic eruptions like the mount Pinatubo eruption or Krakatoa or Tambora seperated by 2 or 3 years in the next decade or two would make the predictions of the same scientists utter nonsense because there would be strong and continued cooling.
There is much more evidence that warming is continuing besides the temperature records. Examples are polar sea ice melting, permafrost melting, glaciers melting and retreating, thousands of new record high temperatures all over the world both at night and during the day, early bird migration, early blooming of plants, movement of insects into warmer areas, pine beetles killing billions of trees etc. etc. ... the list is essentially endless.
I suppose none of this is sufficient to show global warming. The question then remains: What would be sufficient to show global warming?
Unfortunately the laws of climate science cannot be as rigorously proved as the rules in math. Ultimately - the case can only be proven if the climate run-away is actually happening.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut - we don't have to wait for this. We just have to look back about 60 million years, when the era of the Paleocene changed into the Eocene..
At that time the CO2 level of the atmosphere enhanced dramatically to about 1600 ppm (to-day it is 390 ppm) driving up the average temperature such that our planet changed into a world without any ice (the paleo-scientists call this the PETM anomaly).
A good article on this is in the Oct.2011 National Geographic magazine.
And then there are the re-insurance companies - one of the largest is Munich Re.
Munich Re has a large historic data base of natural desasters such as large inundations, hurricanes, extremely dry and hot seasons affecting grain harvests etc.
And their data base shows, that the costs of re-insuring against those desasters are going up in sync with the increasing CO2 level. That is, for the Munich Re people the climate change is already an ongoing fact.
Now - one can always claim that the climate change is happening by causes on which we don't have any influence and which are driving up the CO2 level as a secondary effect.
Result : Do nothing
But - if it is the rising CO2 level, which is responsible for the climate change, and we do nothing, then we end up in another PETM scenario - see above.
And this time it is us (not nature during the PETM).
For all the hoopla about "settled science of global warming or climate change", it is NOT 'settled science". Too many of the scientists espousing "settled science" have been using disingenuous computer generated graphs to make their case. I(t is arrogance and greed for control of the populace to make such pronouncements about the vagaries of climate that have been going on for millenia. Albert Gore has become VERY rich on these pronouncements but exempts himself from the sanctions he feels should be imposed on the general public. These people are either hypocrites or delusional.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAm I the only one that noticed the irony of the A.C.L.U. advocating the restriction of freedom of speech in this case, simply because they don't think such speech is accurate.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps your analysis may not be prohibited by law, but it is prohibited by reason. You cannot claim that we would be in a worse situation without the "bad" interruptions of the 20th century. It's entirely possible that someone, or group, may have perfected non-polluting energy, and our situation would then be completely different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the "War of Currents" demonstrates, the better alternative is not always readily accepted. Whenever science is developed commercially, all bets are off.
You may be right that we would be in the same, or worse, position. But the possibility that we may not exists, so that cannot be stated categorically.
Let's hope the Tennessee teachers have advanced beyond the "Scopes" era, but I'm not holding my breath.
"Are you saying the only kind of president you approve of is one with atheist beliefs? Sounds prejudiced to me."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDo you really want someone who honestly believes the earth is only 6,000 years old (and other various nonsense) to run your country? Someone who blatantly ignores evidence and bases their life on dogmatic hearsay is not someone I want to trust with the future of my nation.
Would you say it is prejudiced if I did not vote for someone because they believe that the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus are real?
Honking out exaggeration-based diatribes that don't differentiate between childish fairy tales and spiritual beliefs embarrasses only you. That's not the point. Deciding that you 'know' better than every single one of 6 billion living people and 20 billion from the past only qualifies you as the biggest hubristic fool alive. I personally have no belief-connection to deities myself, but I certainly don't parade my individual beliefs as though they are unequivocally the only right way to think for all people (let alone think I can mock them, when actually I would only be proclaiming my conceited bigotry)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReligious beliefs and fairy tales have the exact same amount of evidence to support them. There is no reason for me to believe utter nonsense because billions of others allowed themselves to be brainwashed. I actually used to be one of them, to the extent where I applied for seminary. Luckily during that process I decided to try and understand opposing views and it finally dawned on me that I was an imbecile for following baseless beliefs like a sheep. You can call it bigotry if you like, but the notion that I have to respect someones nonsense beliefs is idiotic, especially when people in power make decisions for others based on those beliefs.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLike many atheists, you are not just an atheist, you are an angry atheist. You feel as though you were fooled for some portion of your life. No one likes to think they were duped (often by organized religions).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the most common, parochial atheist argument to equate theistic beliefs with easily disproven fairy tales. Personal (internal) spiritual beliefs can neither be proven nor disproven. There is no concrete proof that deities exist, nor can it be proved they do not exist.
Everyone's personal spiritual beliefs are 100% true for themselves, and at the same time no strength of personal spiritual beliefs makes them even 1% true for the next person. Atheism is a belief that there are no deities. The most important thing is this:
Spiritual beliefs are like money: Their value is in their application, not in the beliefs themselves. You can't eat money, nor can you build a shelter out of it, but you can trade money for food and shelter. Spiritual beliefs are the same. The possible god(s), rituals, and rules show a way to act toward your fellow beings. Spending time espousing a particular set of spiritual beliefs, which you deem 'correct', and defining conflicting beliefs as 'wrong' is not just irrelevant, it is prejudiced and harmful. Use your beliefs to guide your compassion. That may be their only value.
"Everyone's personal spiritual beliefs are 100% true for themselves, and at the same time no strength of personal spiritual beliefs makes them even 1% true for the next person."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would disagree with this. Believing in something does not make it true. Believing in something that is not true is self-deception. Religion has a unique right to this for some reason. If someone says they hear voices and talk to people who aren't there they are often sent to a mental institution. At the same time, people can claim to speak to god and that he speaks to them and it is widely accepted as normal and even admirable.
While religion can guide you on compassion and how to treat others in a positive way, in many circumstances it does just the opposite.
"Spending time espousing a particular set of spiritual beliefs, which you deem 'correct', and defining conflicting beliefs as 'wrong' is not just irrelevant, it is prejudiced and harmful."
This is exactly what the Abrahamic religions have been doing for thousands of years and it has lead to countless atrocities.
What I am getting at here is that I think religion is a poor method of guiding values and morality. We as a society can be moral and compassionate without the threat of eternal damnation. We are social animals, and for the most part will act in a way that benefits society. It is most often religion that goes counter to this.
Now that I have gone completely off topic, my issue with religion in this particular case is that they continually discount facts because they don't match up with their holy writings. In this instance, the religious are misinforming our children because of their spiritual views. I do not want my children's education to be ruined by people who refuse to even attempt understand scientific evidence. If you want to teach your kids religion, send them to a catholic school, but misrepresenting science for your personal agenda is wrong.
All good points. All organizations have the possibility of corruption (and probability, given the range of human nature). Atheism takes an extreme view in that is does not merely oppose organized (and therefore sometimes enforced and institutionalized) religion, but attempts to deny personal spiritual beliefs (probably only the individual's business).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never suggested that religion had an exclusive lock on morality. I don't think that at all. It is a theist's confused argument to suggest that morality based on the promise of a reward (heaven) is better than it just be the right thing to do for your fellow beings.
I have no idea why some (and it seems the majority) people believe in creator deities. I'm sure many of them are just socialized that way. I'm sure you are often asked, "You don't believe in God?" when the actual question they are asking is "Do you actually not believe in the god I 'know' exists" There's really no answer to give them that has both meaning to you and them.
At the same time, for me, it would be too hubristic to declare every single one of billions of people to be fundamentally deluded. Theistic beliefs seem to comfort and empower many people. This is where a public face of agnosticism comes in. Despite personal (internal) beliefs, the idea that anyone could be right (as long as they are not using their beliefs to hurt others) is a great starting place.
I'll leave deities to them and leave myself an agnostic. Who knows? Maybe some day we'll be standing on a cloud in front of pearly gates. No one knows for absolute sure. (actually the whole western one-go-round, pass the bar and you're in bliss for eternity is beyond what I can believe, but that's a debate for another day).
Ok, well I see three arguments being conflated here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is the 'right' for a teacher to contradict/challenge scientific orthodoxy in a classroom.
Two is the fear that this will lead to arbitrary scientific teaching to Tennessee science students, and more concerning to some that this will allow covert religious teachings to be conveyed under the radar.
But it is number three here that has me a bit confused, in this conflation, the commentary implies that challenging global warming theory is tantamount if not the same as teaching religion in the classroom. A strong distinction has not been made in this article, and probably not in the public policy arguments.
Teaching that evolution is not real because the universe was created by a god 6K years ago, is fundamentally different, religiously and scientific methodologically, than challenging the current understandings of the correlation of certain gas proportions in the atmosphere to the average global temperature.
I see this article, and the arguments implied by it, as a straight up conflation of calling human made global warming theory skepticism in the same category (legally and scientifically) as challenging Darwinism.
Ok, well I see three arguments being conflated here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is the 'right' for a teacher to contradict/challenge scientific orthodoxy in a classroom.
Two is the fear that this will lead to arbitrary scientific teaching to Tennessee science students, and more concerning to some that this will allow covert religious teachings to be conveyed under the radar.
But it is number three here that has me a bit confused, in this conflation, the commentary implies that challenging global warming theory is tantamount if not the same as teaching religion in the classroom. A strong distinction has not been made in this article, and probably not in the public policy arguments.
Teaching that evolution is not real because the universe was created by a god 6K years ago, is fundamentally different, religiously and scientific methodologically, than challenging the current understandings of the correlation of certain gas proportions in the atmosphere to the average global temperature.
I see this article, and the arguments implied by it, as a straight up conflation of calling human made global warming theory skepticism in the same category (legally and scientifically) as challenging Darwinism.
Ok, well I see three arguments being conflated here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne is the 'right' for a teacher to contradict/challenge scientific orthodoxy in a classroom.
Two is the fear that this will lead to arbitrary scientific teaching to Tennessee science students, and more concerning to some that this will allow covert religious teachings to be conveyed under the radar.
But it is number three here that has me a bit confused, in this conflation, the commentary implies that challenging global warming theory is tantamount if not the same as teaching religion in the classroom. A strong distinction has not been made in this article, and probably not in the public policy arguments.
Teaching that evolution is not real because the universe was created by a god 6K years ago, is fundamentally different, religiously and scientific methodologically, than challenging the current understandings of the correlation of certain gas proportions in the atmosphere to the average global temperature.
I see this article, and the arguments implied by it, as a straight up conflation of calling human made global warming
Well, I don't ascribe to the dead-guy-on-a-stick worldview, or any magical beings in the sky type theories either, that is not science, it is magic. They could teach that, if they qualify with letting the students know that a lot of people think it is magic.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut what is your take on TN's permission to school teachers to teach alternate views on anthropogenic global warming theory? There are certainly enough real, non-magical, scientists who thoroughly question the viability of that theory as well.
Would you force teachers to teach ideologically pure AGW theory, or at least let the children know of the alternate viewpoints??
Yes, temperatures may drop even if AGW theory is correct. And temperatures may rise even is AGW theory is false.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat is the nature of "Climate Change".
The question is not whether climate changes, which is no one contests, but whether climate changes unidirectionally, and in a way that will harm mankind, in the long term due to the gases mankind emits into the atmosphere.
You say it does, I don't see the evidence presented as proof that it does, nor of confirmation of the theory.