Environment
Arvada
This letter has not been edited.
CK - I believe the President did appropriately address the global climate change issue. He laid out some achievable goals that will go along ways towards reducing man-made pollution in our atmosphere.
The problem many people have is that between the the media, many politicians and many school systems, there is no debate permitted about this very naturally occuring climate change. Anyone who dares question these doomsday, alarmist predictions are quickly labeled as deniers and silenced whenever they try and speak.
I urge you to speak up in school and ask for fair and equal debate on this subject using the many scientists both for and against this issue rather than just studying Al Gore's movie fantasy.
Posted by KW on January 30, 2007 08:36 AMScience is very seldom done by "debate".
It is done by the careful, painstaking collection of evidence, construction of explanatory theories, and then the subjection of theories to other people trying to repeat, build on, or destroy those theories by again, painstaking collection of evidence, construction of tests, and exploration of the theory’s predictions.
We don't stand rival scientists up (as much as there are ever "rivals") and have them duke it out in debate.
The validity of scientific theories is certainly not decided by high-school debate, and although the exercise may prove informative and useful to the students, it is as likely to give a platform to unscientific postulations as it is to attract real science.
I would wonder what a student is to do if they leave such a debate believing that the pseudo-science argument was “more convincing”.
We will not discover what climate effects to expect by high-school debate, but rather by the normal practices carried out by the thousands of highly qualified and dedicated professionals doing the science and sharing their findings in peer-reviewed journals.
Ptero & CK - Here' s a couple of scientists who disagree with the Al Gore style of approach to global climate change:
Unstoppable Global Warming Every 1500 Years, by physicist Fred Singer and economist Dennis Avery was released just before Christmas.
The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark and former BBC science writer Nigel Calder (Icon Books), is due out in March.
Unstoppable Global Warming documents the reality of a moderate, natural, 1500-year climate cycle on the earth. The Chilling Stars explains the why and how.
Some scientists believe that looking at climate trends over a 1500-year period to reach conclusions rather than extrapolating theories based upon weather changes in the last century is a better approach.
Which do you think represents better scientific analysis and why? Those are great questions for classromm discussion.
Posted by KW on January 30, 2007 11:54 AMFred Singer is nothing more than a paid puppet. He heads The Science & Environmental Policy Project, which has received numerous grants from ExxonMobil.
Henrik Svensmark et al, speak to the effects of cosmic rays. There’s no definitive pattern to cosmic rays, thus no direct correlation between cosmic rays and climate change. CR’s may contribute to climate change, but much more research is needed in this area. Instead, this group issued press releases stating their position (what scientific group issues press releases and for what reason?), a position that was rejected by over 2500 other scientists. Too many questions and not enough testing.
I agree with you TT. "Too many questions and not enough testing." That's my main arguement against current alarmists theories. All they have formed is hypothesis but according to the media and dems, if you dissent your are laughed at and called a GW "denier" as to liken you to holocaust "deniers." A tad bit over the edge, don't you think?
As to scientists funding for GW studies, the alarmists are raking in billions of dollars in grants both public and private. Why are they immune from being corrupted by the allmighty dollar but dissenting views are immediately dismissed as in the pockets of big oil?
That arguement doesn't hold water.
Posted by KW on January 30, 2007 05:28 PMKW, you are using a strawman or you have misunderstood what is being said.
Nobody thinks that being an "alarmist" is a good thing except the media who love it for the thrill value and the fact that it sells advertising. This is why I pointed to the kinds of journals that deal a lot less in “thrill” and a lot more in the science itself.
You might notice that I did not tell him to go watch Al Gore’s movie, so I don’t know who you are trying to accuse here.
You really need to separate in your mind the science from the way media works.
So back to the schoolkid, he is not served by trying to “debate” to see which theory “wins” in class, but he would certainly gain by reading Science or Nature at his school library.
Posted by AAAS Member on January 30, 2007 06:10 PMAMem - Could the school kids read the other books I mentioned as well?
Posted by KW on January 30, 2007 06:40 PMKW - Absolutely!
Just as soon as they have done their homework and eaten their vegetables ;)
KW
You say that argument does not hold water, but it sure holds oil.
Unfortunately, this has become a political issue. Follow the money. Who has something to gain? Who has something to lose?
In the “alarmists” corner, weighing in at 1000’s of scientists, both public and private. Government scientists stand to lose their jobs for speaking out, or at the least, muzzled. Low paying (comparatively) do-it-for-the-science type positions.
In the other corner we have the “dissenting” views, weighing in at a handful of virtually no-name, obscure individuals that want to feel relevant. Generally funded by entities that have something to lose. High paying (comparatively) do-it-for-the-money and notoriety type positions.
Can students read those particular books? No! Biased, junk science does not belong in the classroom. Not because they have a “dissenting” view, because they have tossed the scientific method out the window for personal gain.
Posted by TT on January 31, 2007 10:44 AMTT. Your comment about the dissenters being "virtual nobodies" tells me you have done zero research on this. Does the name William Gray mean anything to you? Look it up (and maybe apologize to him for your remark).
You're just along for the bandwagon ride.
Posted by KW on January 31, 2007 04:06 PMKW
Whoa cowboy/girl!
I work in the field, day in and day out. I’m not on a bandwagon, nor does my organization receive grants or any other outside “funding”.
Gray’s opinion is just that. His anti-warming tangent is based on his dislike for the climate change “alarmists”, which by the way, I am in agreement with. But, due to his vocal position, he has become an “alarmist” himself. Losing all credibility as far as I’m concerned.
I surely do not owe him or any other “alarmist” (either side) an apology.
I am sorry, however, that you are incapable of maintaining a mature dialog. You’re just another alarmist.