In the United States alone, we burn about four hundred million gallons of gasoline during each and every day. Each gallon burned creates about twenty pounds of carbon dioxide. That's eight billion pounds of CO2 from only one country, every twenty-four hours. What do those denying climate change think happens to that staggering amount of CO2? Does the magic carbon fairly swoop around in the stratosphere and send it all off to another dimension? Unfortunately, society is forced by groups such as this one continue to wasting precious time re-educating the willfully ignorant.
13
Conservatives have a tendency to be skeptical about statements made by authorities. Liberals tend to accept authoritative statements by their autocratic elite leaders, which makes them good followers.
6
"Physics is inevitable: if you put more more carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, the planet warms, and as the planet warms, various kinds of chaos and ruin are loosed. Politics, on the other hand, is not inevitable." R. Solnit
10
More effort is being made to attack skeptics than to addressing the root of the problem — the western world’s lifestyle of convenience and consumption. Is the real battle to change people’s habits, or force them to agree with an ideology?
How many of you drive, fly, use a computer, have electricity, eat imported and/or packaged food, drink coffee, believe in modern medicine? All of these things require processing, petroleum, electricity and environmental toxins.
If you shop in thrift stores, kudos to you, but there are many people who wouldn’t dream of setting foot in a thrift store, the ultimate in reduce-reuse-recycle.
It’s not enough to wring our hands and warn about impending catastrophe. Do we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle without cars, washers and dryers, computers, plastics, modern medicine, sanitation, water purification, electricity, airplanes, etc.? How many of you are willing to give up the conveniences you wake up to every day? Stop traveling? Stop commuting to well-paying jobs that afford you McMansions, second homes, exotic vacations and Whole Foods?
As an aside, it’s interesting to note the climate has been changing continuously since Earth’s beginnings, with or without human intervention.
Of course we should use our resources wisely and research more fuel-efficient, environmentally protective and different ways of doing things, but there’s probably a limit to how much we can do without regressing to a previous century’s way of living.
How many of you drive, fly, use a computer, have electricity, eat imported and/or packaged food, drink coffee, believe in modern medicine? All of these things require processing, petroleum, electricity and environmental toxins.
If you shop in thrift stores, kudos to you, but there are many people who wouldn’t dream of setting foot in a thrift store, the ultimate in reduce-reuse-recycle.
It’s not enough to wring our hands and warn about impending catastrophe. Do we go back to a pre-industrial lifestyle without cars, washers and dryers, computers, plastics, modern medicine, sanitation, water purification, electricity, airplanes, etc.? How many of you are willing to give up the conveniences you wake up to every day? Stop traveling? Stop commuting to well-paying jobs that afford you McMansions, second homes, exotic vacations and Whole Foods?
As an aside, it’s interesting to note the climate has been changing continuously since Earth’s beginnings, with or without human intervention.
Of course we should use our resources wisely and research more fuel-efficient, environmentally protective and different ways of doing things, but there’s probably a limit to how much we can do without regressing to a previous century’s way of living.
4
For some strange reason I got a copy of this book in the mail. I read through the first section on why there is no scientific consensus on climate change and found it to be unsatisfying, to put it mildly. I hope to read the rest of it and document its falsehoods in the near future.
7
My daughter came home one day and told me that she had learnt at school that there were two theories explaining climate change: the scientific one and the 'I didn't do it one'. In the documents she brought home, the theories were presented as having equal value. Climate change was tackled in social studies and science at the same time, and both teachers alluded to being forced to teach both theories.
Because we had just moved from Europe, my daughter was able to ask her teacher why science was different in Europe. Of course, the USA isn't an environmentalist's paradise, but it used to be quite a good place to study and teach science. Once a beacon, now a candlesnuffer?
Because we had just moved from Europe, my daughter was able to ask her teacher why science was different in Europe. Of course, the USA isn't an environmentalist's paradise, but it used to be quite a good place to study and teach science. Once a beacon, now a candlesnuffer?
21
The author makes no argument other than the one from authority--"97% of climate scientists..." Climate scientists depend on the government to give them funds for research, and the government (until now) has done so with the understanding on both sides that if their research does not follow the party line, the funds will not be forthcoming. So let's look at persons who do not have their mouths in the troughs. How about meteorologists? These guys need to get their predictions right or suffer consequences. They don't even try to predict more than 10 days ahead. A survey of 4000 meteorologists last year found that 67% believe humans are mostly responsible for the recent warming. OK that's a majority, but there is a substantial segment not convinced yet.
There are facts that could be presented. I have not seen the Heartland pamphlet, but I will bet that some of the following are there:
1. Models are running hot. Multiple recent studies find that the best estimate for the effect of CO2 on temperature is about half that of the models.
2. Models predict a warming in the tropical troposphere. This has not been seen by some millions of radiosondes, balloons, and satellite imagery. A clear falsification such as this would invalidate any theory in my specialty (physics).
3. Accepting all actions proposed in the Paris Agreement, and accepting the IPCC's overestimates of climate sensitivity, will produce a temperature in 2001 that is 0.35 C less than if we did nothing at all.
There are facts that could be presented. I have not seen the Heartland pamphlet, but I will bet that some of the following are there:
1. Models are running hot. Multiple recent studies find that the best estimate for the effect of CO2 on temperature is about half that of the models.
2. Models predict a warming in the tropical troposphere. This has not been seen by some millions of radiosondes, balloons, and satellite imagery. A clear falsification such as this would invalidate any theory in my specialty (physics).
3. Accepting all actions proposed in the Paris Agreement, and accepting the IPCC's overestimates of climate sensitivity, will produce a temperature in 2001 that is 0.35 C less than if we did nothing at all.
7
There is no consensus. No one knows to what extent human activity has contributed to the slight increase in temperatures we've seen in the past century. Indeed no one knows if human activity has had a measurable effect at all. If they did, they would have tried to quantify it by now. The fact is that they can't.
And yet trillions have been spent to mitigate a problem that may not even exist. The warming we've seen could very easily have been due to natural variability. Has climate science been able to eliminate natural variability as the possible (and most likely) cause of the slight warming we've seen? No. Not even close.
The hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not even close to being confirmed. It's time that those attempting to use an unproven theory to direct government policy to spend trillions on a threat that has not been adequately quantified step back and wait for the science to catch up with their unproven theories. Their existential fear is that that may never happen. And yet, they want to deprive government of billions in funds to mitigate other forms of human suffering and deprivation.
They need to start asking themselves why.
And yet trillions have been spent to mitigate a problem that may not even exist. The warming we've seen could very easily have been due to natural variability. Has climate science been able to eliminate natural variability as the possible (and most likely) cause of the slight warming we've seen? No. Not even close.
The hypothesis of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is not even close to being confirmed. It's time that those attempting to use an unproven theory to direct government policy to spend trillions on a threat that has not been adequately quantified step back and wait for the science to catch up with their unproven theories. Their existential fear is that that may never happen. And yet, they want to deprive government of billions in funds to mitigate other forms of human suffering and deprivation.
They need to start asking themselves why.
7
I bet there are "respected scientists" out there who can "prove" - if there is any unexplained climate change, it's "in fact" all "scientifically linked" to a continuation of intelligent design... so we have that covered. Uh huh.
2
I think it would be safe to say that if one digs just a liitle deeper one would more than likely find that the Heartland Institute is just another in the many tentacles reaching out and financed by the Koch Bros. It is their MO, they have the motive and the financing to conduct such a massive undertaking of this type of propoganda and as long-time perpetrators of breaking environmental laws and the fines they have paid as a result of those violations, with Trump and the Republicans now providing them with a clear path for their environmental carnage, they can now turn their attention to poisoning the minds of their last possible resistance, young people.
16
Because scientists are human, and like the rest of us prefer to be on the popular side of things, this 97 percent figure is a suspiciously near perfect. In our society, and in scientific fields also, it's near impossible to find that much of a consensus on anything, including whether it's a nice morning out, and if ice cream is good. Nearly every scientific discovery article in the 'Times' has a paragraph towards the bottom in which some contrarian disputes the finding. Except on this issue, where they all line up neatly nodding their heads. Is this science, or merely fashion?
8
I'm all for having our antennae alert for whether a position is academically fashionable but not supported by good evidence or solid reasoning.
But I think a great many scientists have been looking at this from the standpoints of physics, chemistry, ecology, paleontology, and meteorology for a long time now, gathering and analyzing data (including data regarding fairly well understood phenomena such as the characteristics of atmospheric gases). They've been making and refining predictions, and my memory is that the predictions from a couple of decades back seem to have underestimated the speed with which we would begin to see palpable changes. It all seems to have been enough to get the attention of military planners and property insurance actuaries.
None of this has gotten my nonsense detector in gear like, for example, much of the presumably scientific advice about diet in the late 20th Century. The climate science deniers have sure gotten my nonsense detector going.
But I think a great many scientists have been looking at this from the standpoints of physics, chemistry, ecology, paleontology, and meteorology for a long time now, gathering and analyzing data (including data regarding fairly well understood phenomena such as the characteristics of atmospheric gases). They've been making and refining predictions, and my memory is that the predictions from a couple of decades back seem to have underestimated the speed with which we would begin to see palpable changes. It all seems to have been enough to get the attention of military planners and property insurance actuaries.
None of this has gotten my nonsense detector in gear like, for example, much of the presumably scientific advice about diet in the late 20th Century. The climate science deniers have sure gotten my nonsense detector going.
5
Even more scientists agree that gravity is real.
What is your point?
What is your point?
5
It's science, and a similar ratio among experts an a particular field as you find when asking biologists about evolution, or physicists about relativity (or gravity, for that matter).
Look up "the discovery of global warming: A history", an online history by Spencer Weart, and learn more about the two hundred years of research in a number of fields that inevitably lead to the knowledge that large releases of greenhouse gas strongly affect the global climate.
Look up "the discovery of global warming: A history", an online history by Spencer Weart, and learn more about the two hundred years of research in a number of fields that inevitably lead to the knowledge that large releases of greenhouse gas strongly affect the global climate.
4
I teach ecology and evolution, including sections on climate change at California State University, Northridge. I received one of these packets. As one might expect from an organization that uses "alternative facts", all the material was deceptively packaged.
In addition to my address at CSUN, the envelope also had the return address of The Heartland Institute, except they did not write The Heartland Institute on the top line of the return address so one would not know at first glance who had actually sent it.
But the most deceptive part was printed in all caps "AS REPORTED BY", and then the next line "The New York Times", but in the script used by the Times, to make it appear it was sent by the Times. Underneath The New York Times was a headline "Exxon Mobile Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General". Underneath the headline, they wrote "By JUSTIN GILLIS and CLIFFORD KRAUSS".
Inside the envelope was a cover letter with "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". There was, of course, a glossy fancy book with that title.
I sent the material to The New York Times Ombudsman about this organization using the Times to further The Heartland Institute's agenda. I haven't heard back.
In addition to my address at CSUN, the envelope also had the return address of The Heartland Institute, except they did not write The Heartland Institute on the top line of the return address so one would not know at first glance who had actually sent it.
But the most deceptive part was printed in all caps "AS REPORTED BY", and then the next line "The New York Times", but in the script used by the Times, to make it appear it was sent by the Times. Underneath The New York Times was a headline "Exxon Mobile Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General". Underneath the headline, they wrote "By JUSTIN GILLIS and CLIFFORD KRAUSS".
Inside the envelope was a cover letter with "Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming". There was, of course, a glossy fancy book with that title.
I sent the material to The New York Times Ombudsman about this organization using the Times to further The Heartland Institute's agenda. I haven't heard back.
19
any science teacher suckered in by this ploy should not be teaching science. Perhaps creative writing.
16
Shameful.
8
Teacher said that climate change is "likely due to human causes" reflects that some of us (not me yet) are concerned about blowback from rightwing homes that accuse us of teaching values. That is more problematic in some regions of the country than others.
9
The latest IPPC report asserted that climate change is likely due to human causes.
That you have moved to the position that life as we know it will end if we do not immediately stop using fossil fuels would be a clear indication that you believe children should be indoctrinated with fear and a sense of hopelessness.
That you have moved to the position that life as we know it will end if we do not immediately stop using fossil fuels would be a clear indication that you believe children should be indoctrinated with fear and a sense of hopelessness.
3
Lets talk about climate consensus... for the climate deniers, like Heartland. Not mentioned in this study: James Joseph Powell studied all peer-reviewed science papers published in the two decades before 2012. Dr Powell, kentuckian, chair of Oberlin college geology dept 8 years. President 'Franklin and Marshall College' 5 years. President 'Reed College' 3 years. 12 years on National Science Board. Currently executive director of the 'Nat'l Physical Science Consortium'. Has a planet named after him.
I only mention these credentials because Joe Bast, the CEO of Heartland Institute, lately found trying the send propaganda directly to America's children, dissing the climate consensus, has no degree, in anything, whatsoever. He studied economics as an undergraduate until Big Tobacco gave him an offer he couldn't refuse, and the rest is infamy, er, I mean, history.
Anyway, Dr Powell took a look at all peer-reviewed science papers with 'climate change' or 'global warming' in them, and found 13,950 papers. He also found that only 24 papers either disagreed with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or claimed some other reason for modern warming. Big Fossils can propagandize our children that 'there is no consensus' on global warming. But 24 papers out of 13,950 published in the last 20 years, doesn't exactly verify Joe Bast's fossil-fueled arguments, either.
I only mention these credentials because Joe Bast, the CEO of Heartland Institute, lately found trying the send propaganda directly to America's children, dissing the climate consensus, has no degree, in anything, whatsoever. He studied economics as an undergraduate until Big Tobacco gave him an offer he couldn't refuse, and the rest is infamy, er, I mean, history.
Anyway, Dr Powell took a look at all peer-reviewed science papers with 'climate change' or 'global warming' in them, and found 13,950 papers. He also found that only 24 papers either disagreed with the theory of anthropogenic global warming, or claimed some other reason for modern warming. Big Fossils can propagandize our children that 'there is no consensus' on global warming. But 24 papers out of 13,950 published in the last 20 years, doesn't exactly verify Joe Bast's fossil-fueled arguments, either.
15
Out of 13,950 papers on global warming, only 24 papers disagreed with anthropogenic warming. That does not mean that 13,926 of the papers made assertions that global warming is occurring and that manmade greenhouse gases are the primary cause of global warming.
Some of the papers had the words climate change or global warming in the text, but did not make the same assertion that you are claiming is the consensus.
And Dr. Powell did not read 13,950 papers. He did not even read the abstracts for the 13,950 papers. He put them through a computer program that classified them using a heuristic.
If he wrote a memo to each of the authors of the 13,950 papers along with a summary of his conclusion regarding the "consensus", 85% of the authors would take issue with his characterization of their opinion.
Some of the papers had the words climate change or global warming in the text, but did not make the same assertion that you are claiming is the consensus.
And Dr. Powell did not read 13,950 papers. He did not even read the abstracts for the 13,950 papers. He put them through a computer program that classified them using a heuristic.
If he wrote a memo to each of the authors of the 13,950 papers along with a summary of his conclusion regarding the "consensus", 85% of the authors would take issue with his characterization of their opinion.
2
I have a paper about to appear any day now in the peer-reviewed journal Bulletin of Science, Technology, and Society that shows that the consensus on anthropogenic global warming among 54,195 peer-reviewed articles from 1991-2015 is 99.94%. But don't expect the Heartland Institute to acknowledge my paper. I will put a link to it on www.jamespowell.org when it comes out.
21
Wow, Dr Powell. I'm going to, somehow, convince readers that I had no idea you were going to comment on this stream just above my own comment. I was just aware of your previous work, and am glad that you have extended it. I look forward to seeing your new paper.
I just needed for people to take a look at what is passing for 'Science' in the fossil-fueled denier-sphere these days. How does a guy with no degree, in anything, end up teaching our kids that Naomi Oreskes (15 years a Professor of the History of Science, currently at Harvard) is a 'socialist historian'? Or that Dr Cook is a 'blogger'? Or to not even mention your previous study that pretty much put the nail in the coffin of climate denial?
Anyway, keep fighting for Science. We are so totally going to win.
Signed, a fan.
I just needed for people to take a look at what is passing for 'Science' in the fossil-fueled denier-sphere these days. How does a guy with no degree, in anything, end up teaching our kids that Naomi Oreskes (15 years a Professor of the History of Science, currently at Harvard) is a 'socialist historian'? Or that Dr Cook is a 'blogger'? Or to not even mention your previous study that pretty much put the nail in the coffin of climate denial?
Anyway, keep fighting for Science. We are so totally going to win.
Signed, a fan.
5
As depressing as this article is, I find it equally--if not more--frightening that the Koch Brothers are beginning to "buy" ($200 million in donations) Libertarian think tanks INSIDE universities with a specific goal of churning out X number of PhDs per year, who then teach Y number of Libertarian classes to Z number of fresh young college students/yr--with exponential growth in a short period of time-- to indoctrinate them in Ayn Rand individualism / unfettered capitalism / anti-regulation / anti-tax / small government (Grover Norquist "small enough to drown in a bathtub") / damn the climate and environment and little people. Clemson, George Mason, Florida State, University of Texas, Texas Tech, Kentucky, Ball State, Oklahoma State, and many others have some Koch-funded propaganda machine infecting one of our last "liberal thought" institutions. And these centers (with names like Texas Tech's "Freedom Institute") aren't limited to Koch / Libertarian "donations"; indeed, hiring, firing, and curriculum decisions also come with many of these packages. So beware. These greedy oligarchs aren't satisfied with taking over media or malleable K-12 minds to sow their "alt facts"; they are fully weaponized to win their greedy war on all fronts. While they are busy funding climate change denial in science, the media, and K-12, they are also working furiously to "cultivate" a "talent pipeline" of future libertarian business leaders and politicians. Resist!
http://www.unkochmycampus.org
http://www.unkochmycampus.org
19
It would have helped enormously had Dr. Stager provided some detail about the new data that had changed his mind. While I fervently believe in the precautionary principle, meaning that there are many, many reasons to move away from fossil fuels, and I understand that only the scariest scenarios are comprehensible, so whether provable or not, that's what scientists support, I don't like defenses of the practice that are anti-science. I would put land and water toxicity first - both from the fuels themselves and the chemicals and methods used in acquiring and refining them. Think of all those brownfield sites, dead rivers, poisoned estuaries. But scientists and activists do not believe we care or are capable of understanding anything much, but that everyone has seen that there is less sand at the beach, or something similar. That tectonic plate activity (many coastlines are sinking) is the cause of most of that goes unmentioned.
So, please, what is this new data? One cannot compare the data collected from literally millions of collection points over the past 30 years with weather reports from the 19th century. To say, as many commenters do here, that the Industrial Revolution is all the evidence we need is about as anti-science as the Heartland Group. Please provide the real science.
So, please, what is this new data? One cannot compare the data collected from literally millions of collection points over the past 30 years with weather reports from the 19th century. To say, as many commenters do here, that the Industrial Revolution is all the evidence we need is about as anti-science as the Heartland Group. Please provide the real science.
6
NYT is not exactly the place for extensive discussion of data and their statistical analyses, which is what you are asking for, whether you know it or not. Dr. Stager DID provide information and discussion of where and how one can consider the relevant data, and the provenance in a general sense of those data.
All scientists are skeptical. It is our nature, and we are trained to be so as well. But when the null hypothesis is rejected repeatedly, we generally accept the alternative. Climate change is real, and we (humans) are causing it.
All scientists are skeptical. It is our nature, and we are trained to be so as well. But when the null hypothesis is rejected repeatedly, we generally accept the alternative. Climate change is real, and we (humans) are causing it.
11
How has the null hypothesis ever been evaluated? That is a major failure of the whole argument that there is a scientific consensus. If you were a scientist, you would be aware that consensus is not an element of the scientific method.
How do you explain the 20 year hiatus? Other than pretending that the NASA satellite data doesn't exist?
How do you explain the 20 year hiatus? Other than pretending that the NASA satellite data doesn't exist?
1
He clearly stated "... high-quality climate reconstructions from ice cores, tree rings, lake sediments and other geological sources, coupled with rigorous analyses of solar activity, volcanism and fossil fuel emissions, have made it clear that the recent warming is not simply a result of natural variability or cycles." NOT 19th century weather data.
6
We're basically cooked already as a civilization*, and they still feel the need to push their false propaganda. All the climate probabilities and possibilities projected by science 30, 20, 10, even 5 years ago are already being surpassed. Have these people no shame?
*last Sunday's NYT Magazine was the latest progress report on our rush to the cliff's edge
*last Sunday's NYT Magazine was the latest progress report on our rush to the cliff's edge
11
Of course the world's scientists do not disagree on the subject: all surveys show agreement from 97.1% to 99.98% using independent methodologies and independent data. The issue regarding human-caused climate change was settled before most people alive today were even born.
For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase:
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
John Henry Poynting in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
Alexander Graham Bell in 1917
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956
Carl Sagan in 1972
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980
We have the evidence; we win!
For over 180 years scientists have been demonstrating that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global temperature increase:
Joseph Fourier in 1824 and 1827
John Tyndall in 1859
Svante Arrhenius in 1896
C.J. Fox in 1909
John Henry Poynting in 1909
A. Angstron in 1918
Chamberlain and Fowle in 1916
Alexander Graham Bell in 1917
E.O. Hulburt in 1931
S.G. Callendar in 1937
Professor Gilbert Plass in 1956
Carl Sagan in 1972
Stephen Hawking in 1960
Isaac Asimov in 1968
Wally Broecker in 1975
Richard Feynman and "The Jasons" in 1980
We have the evidence; we win!
16
Virtually no teacher is educated specifically in their topic. In high school I had a chemistry teacher who had a chemistry degree, not a teaching degree. If you ask for believers in methods you get people who believe rather than think. Maybe topic experts wouldn't be so easily cowed.
Much of primary education is an inculcation into behaving as a good citizen. Which would be fine if what was meant by being a good citizen is to be diligent, hardworking, honest and educated. However, what it usually means is knowing ones place like a good farm animal. Primary schools are mostly places that produce people educated enough to work for the local industry. The GOP doesn't need the profit beasts knowing anything more than what they must do.
Much of primary education is an inculcation into behaving as a good citizen. Which would be fine if what was meant by being a good citizen is to be diligent, hardworking, honest and educated. However, what it usually means is knowing ones place like a good farm animal. Primary schools are mostly places that produce people educated enough to work for the local industry. The GOP doesn't need the profit beasts knowing anything more than what they must do.
2
Hmmm.... . Teachers in high school, if properly certified, generally have the equivalent of a bachelor's degree with a major in the subject of certification. At least that was the case when I briefly taught high school biology and chemistry 50 years ago. It was still the case when I was a biology professor for 42 years in Oklahoma, Kentucky, and Texas.
However, a bachelor's degree is only a start at being well versed in a given discipline, and teacher education beyond that leans heavily toward school administration because in that direction lies career advancement and because the degrees are easier to obtain. Not only is there less difficulty involved in the coursework and research, but the degrees are set up to be available to part time students, and those who can only attend evening and summer offerings.
However, a bachelor's degree is only a start at being well versed in a given discipline, and teacher education beyond that leans heavily toward school administration because in that direction lies career advancement and because the degrees are easier to obtain. Not only is there less difficulty involved in the coursework and research, but the degrees are set up to be available to part time students, and those who can only attend evening and summer offerings.
4
After eight decades of life experience, one thing I have learned is how wide-spread the use of distraction has become in what should be serious discussions of issues. This action being described in this article is a case in point.
No matter whether the causes of global warming are 20% or 50% man-made or whatever, the effects remain the same. The worsening or abatement of the outcomes remain the same. The lessening of impact requires the same clearly scientifically based approaches.
This group's efforts are just to protect their interests against the encroachment of reality. Over the decades I have watched conservative behavior change from defending long-held preferences against the inexorable change time brings, to a tactically driven denial of reality. Hence the 'alternate facts', 'false news', etc, are, like this book mailing effort, the latest example of a trend long in the making.
The first President I voted for was Eisenhower. That's how far removed we are from America being 'great again".
No matter whether the causes of global warming are 20% or 50% man-made or whatever, the effects remain the same. The worsening or abatement of the outcomes remain the same. The lessening of impact requires the same clearly scientifically based approaches.
This group's efforts are just to protect their interests against the encroachment of reality. Over the decades I have watched conservative behavior change from defending long-held preferences against the inexorable change time brings, to a tactically driven denial of reality. Hence the 'alternate facts', 'false news', etc, are, like this book mailing effort, the latest example of a trend long in the making.
The first President I voted for was Eisenhower. That's how far removed we are from America being 'great again".
16
That's awful! Just burn this book.
5
Burning books, whether real books written by sincere and thoughtful people, or propaganda written by paid hacks like this one, contribute to destructive anthropogenic climate change.
Better to compost this dishonest rearguard swill, doncha think?
Better to compost this dishonest rearguard swill, doncha think?
6
When you compost paper, it releases methane and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Which have a greater impact on the greenhouse effect than CO2.
2
How about adding footnotes and links to this article, instead of just saying things like "a study in 2010 found that 97 percent of the 200 most-published authors of climate-related papers held the consensus position, and a survey in 2013 of 4,014 abstracts of peer-reviewed climate papers found 97 percent agreement." People who are genuinely uninformed need a chance to look at the evidence, rather than be preached at. Otherwise this article operates on the same level as the Heartland book it is critiquing.
5
Let's say just for the sake of argument that the recent rapid warming of the Earth is from natural causes as Republicans assert now that they can no longer say the Earth isn't warming which did up until about ten years ago. Does it make sense to dump billions of tons of heat trapping gases into the atmosphere on top of this natural phenomenon? Of course not.
16
So how do we get this essay into the hands of all the teachers who got the book? (especially those in Tennessee and Louisiana - Louisiana, particularly, should care about getting climate science right!) If you've got a Kickstarter, I'll help fund it (you don't even need to send me a goodie).
8
This strikes me as an opportunity for a good old-fashioned book burning, combined with a loud and vocal demonstration by legitimate scientists. Maybe a nice bonfire somewhere in Washington DC? Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming? Almost criminal. I wish there was a way to sue the Heartland Institute for slander.
8
People....this is free speech...like Ann Coulter's banter...it is up to you to educate yourself and separate fact from ...alternative facts.
4
This is both disturbing and alarming!
4
I suggest that "Heartland"
The worst kind of junk mail. Thank goodness I am not an educator and have missed being subjected to this
Here is a clue: Stig Larssen who was a journalist specializing in Neo-Nazis, ultra conservatives and other Alt-Right types before his "Dragon Tattoo" fame, noticed certain things about such organizations. They always use words like freedom, liberty and "the people's" something or other. "Heartland" could be another such phrase. Beware!
Here is a clue: Stig Larssen who was a journalist specializing in Neo-Nazis, ultra conservatives and other Alt-Right types before his "Dragon Tattoo" fame, noticed certain things about such organizations. They always use words like freedom, liberty and "the people's" something or other. "Heartland" could be another such phrase. Beware!
6
Heartland has been around for decades. It was the propoganda outlet of Exxon Mobil during the latter decades of the last century, and through the Bush administration.
3
The children and grandchildren of the Kochs and Pruitts and Tillersons are liable to ask, "Why did you poison the Earth? Why didn't you try to stop the madness?" To which, as they begin to squirm, reply,
"Honey, look how rich you are."
"Honey, look how rich you are."
13
Always remember one important thing, the people that run these large corporations whose only real duty is to maximize profits for their shareholders/owners, can generally be characterized as having one common trait.
They are "sociopaths".
They are "sociopaths".
6
If i ever have children theyre being homeschooled with udacity or something.
1
Regardless of one's position on whether or not human activity has caused climate change, I think most reasonable people would agree that:
1.) it's not really the best thing in the world to suck on the business-end of a tailpipe be it that of a coal power electric plant or a simple automobile;
2.) it's not really the best thing in the world to continue to enable petro-dictators be they the diseased dictators in the Middle East or those in Venezuela, Russia and parts of Africa;
3.) per the brilliance of Pascal's wager, even if the climate scientists are only possibly, maybe, perhaps correct, given the downside, doesn't it make sense to clean-up, literally and figuratively, our energy act?; and finally
4.) who doubts that the future is about clean, renewable energy, not dirty, filthy, lung-diseasing fossils fuels from the 19th century.
And yeah, though I love science, I am very suspicious of scientists and how they pathetically, distressingly and (for those allegedly committed only to "the truth") paradoxically, almost unthinkingly embrace the politically correct interpretation of data (see, e.g., the treatment of E.O Wilson, Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade) here, I'm ready to support the remedies those scientists propose for climate change, if not necessarily wholly buy-into their diagnosis for its cause.
1.) it's not really the best thing in the world to suck on the business-end of a tailpipe be it that of a coal power electric plant or a simple automobile;
2.) it's not really the best thing in the world to continue to enable petro-dictators be they the diseased dictators in the Middle East or those in Venezuela, Russia and parts of Africa;
3.) per the brilliance of Pascal's wager, even if the climate scientists are only possibly, maybe, perhaps correct, given the downside, doesn't it make sense to clean-up, literally and figuratively, our energy act?; and finally
4.) who doubts that the future is about clean, renewable energy, not dirty, filthy, lung-diseasing fossils fuels from the 19th century.
And yeah, though I love science, I am very suspicious of scientists and how they pathetically, distressingly and (for those allegedly committed only to "the truth") paradoxically, almost unthinkingly embrace the politically correct interpretation of data (see, e.g., the treatment of E.O Wilson, Charles Murray and Nicholas Wade) here, I'm ready to support the remedies those scientists propose for climate change, if not necessarily wholly buy-into their diagnosis for its cause.
6
Exactly how has E.O. Wilson been mistreated?
He extended his conclusions regarding social organization in insects, the only group of animals he studied in depth, into humanity. Those extensions were properly rejected since there were insufficient data to support them. With regard to the rest of his work, he is an acclaimed scientist.
He extended his conclusions regarding social organization in insects, the only group of animals he studied in depth, into humanity. Those extensions were properly rejected since there were insufficient data to support them. With regard to the rest of his work, he is an acclaimed scientist.
From NASA:
Is Earth's Climate Changing?
Earth's climate is always changing. In the past, Earth's climate has gone through warmer and cooler periods, each lasting thousands of years.
What Is the Difference Between "Climate Change" and "Global Warming"?
"Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to any long-term change in Earth's climate, or in the climate of a region or city. This includes warming, cooling and changes besides temperature.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is...
That's the point - it's hard to to put a blame, for example, for cooling on global warming, but it's easy to blame climate change for it.
Is Earth's Climate Changing?
Earth's climate is always changing. In the past, Earth's climate has gone through warmer and cooler periods, each lasting thousands of years.
What Is the Difference Between "Climate Change" and "Global Warming"?
"Global warming" refers to the long-term increase in Earth's average temperature.
"Climate change" refers to any long-term change in Earth's climate, or in the climate of a region or city. This includes warming, cooling and changes besides temperature.
http://www.nasa.gov/audience/forstudents/5-8/features/nasa-knows/what-is...
That's the point - it's hard to to put a blame, for example, for cooling on global warming, but it's easy to blame climate change for it.
AGW believers' suggestion that there's a real danger is based on their false assumption that they know a lot about the situation. And some people blindly trust those scientists because they are successful in their propaganda, not because of the scientific facts. And using their fictional narrative they try to change the lives of the whole earth's population. It's really scary - having no proof, not knowing what's going on, putting as a evidence not even a guess but just a desired explanation for their action - they want to start some imagined fight affecting existence of billions of people. They are not prudent. Prudent is the real science and not shouting down your opponents. Immeasurably Irresponsible and dangerous - that's what those "believers" are.
Those scientists cannot predict what will happen in 5-10 years. They don't know the nature's secrets and have no idea how the nature works. But they insist that their incomplete and totally unreliable models can tell what will happen in a hundred years. It's not just an arrogance, it's a fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/science/global-warming-climate-change-...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20140916-the-corals-that-come-back-from-t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html...
Those scientists cannot predict what will happen in 5-10 years. They don't know the nature's secrets and have no idea how the nature works. But they insist that their incomplete and totally unreliable models can tell what will happen in a hundred years. It's not just an arrogance, it's a fraud.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/16/science/global-warming-climate-change-...
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20140916-the-corals-that-come-back-from-t...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/16/science/coral-reef-climate-change.html...
So why is every decade since the 19th Century, warmer than the previous decade?
Why are almost all glaciers world wide, retreating?
With CO2 in the atmosphere over 400 parts per million and rising, when has this corresponded to a cooling phase on earth?
Why are almost all glaciers world wide, retreating?
With CO2 in the atmosphere over 400 parts per million and rising, when has this corresponded to a cooling phase on earth?
8
I hate to speak in such terms, but this is a lot of blather. Data are what drive scientific conclusions, not wishful thinking.
3
@Barry of Nambucca,
You still believe in those "adjusted" numbers? So ask why those numbers always adjusted and always in order to get higher temperatures?
The honesty of all these figures was perfectly presented in the Times' article about record Earth's temperatures for the third year in a row.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Do you see the record numbers?
A record without a number of the record!
And the numbers won't come from graphics either...
It's 0.01 degree at 0.1 margin of error
It's like saying a person leads in a poll by 3 points with the margin of error being 30 points.
"Scientists at the Met Office and East Anglia University found 2016 was 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the average between 1850 and 1900.
This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-r...
Yes, continue to believe. As you probably believe that the reason AGW was renamed Climate Change has nothing to do with difficulty to prove this Anthropogenic Global Warming.
You still believe in those "adjusted" numbers? So ask why those numbers always adjusted and always in order to get higher temperatures?
The honesty of all these figures was perfectly presented in the Times' article about record Earth's temperatures for the third year in a row.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/science/earth-highest-temperature-rec...
Do you see the record numbers?
A record without a number of the record!
And the numbers won't come from graphics either...
It's 0.01 degree at 0.1 margin of error
It's like saying a person leads in a poll by 3 points with the margin of error being 30 points.
"Scientists at the Met Office and East Anglia University found 2016 was 1.1 degrees Celsius warmer than the average between 1850 and 1900.
This puts 2016 only nominally ahead of 2015 by just 0.01C – within the 0.1C margin of error"
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/dangerous-climate-change-time-r...
Yes, continue to believe. As you probably believe that the reason AGW was renamed Climate Change has nothing to do with difficulty to prove this Anthropogenic Global Warming.
My heart goes out to teachers in the sciences and environmental studies. They are not trained to deal with these professional deniers who cherry pick data, distort the results of scientific papers and, quite often, simply make things up. I know in my own case, friends who are deniers will come out with a fact that supports their position and it is often not easy to respond to them.
Usually the fact is about a very narrow result that appears as if it supports that global warming is not happening. One example, could be: "Antarctic ice is increasing. Therefore global warming is not happening." You need to be quite well read to be able to handle these type of statements. (In this case, a simple general reply could be along the lines of: The earth is a massive and complex structure. Hence even while there is overall warming, there will be local areas where it appears to be cooling. This is to be expected.)
I think that teachers and others on the front line who have to deal with these full-time professional well-funded deniers need all the support we can give them.
Usually the fact is about a very narrow result that appears as if it supports that global warming is not happening. One example, could be: "Antarctic ice is increasing. Therefore global warming is not happening." You need to be quite well read to be able to handle these type of statements. (In this case, a simple general reply could be along the lines of: The earth is a massive and complex structure. Hence even while there is overall warming, there will be local areas where it appears to be cooling. This is to be expected.)
I think that teachers and others on the front line who have to deal with these full-time professional well-funded deniers need all the support we can give them.
60
John Cook of Skeptical Science, perchance?
National Center for Science Education (google it) is working hard to train teachers in how to respond to anti-evolutionists and climate change deniers. They can only reach a limited number, however.
4
I've always thought that the discussion of whether climate change is caused by humans is largely irrelevant. Let's say that the climate was becoming increasingly inhospitable because of the actions of extraterrestrials. Would we then shrug our shoulders and accept it?
To the extent that we were rational, we would still do what we could to resist harmful climate change. That is what we should do now. I'm quite certain that climate change is caused by humans. But it is merely a distraction to focus on the cause. We need to find the cure.
To the extent that we were rational, we would still do what we could to resist harmful climate change. That is what we should do now. I'm quite certain that climate change is caused by humans. But it is merely a distraction to focus on the cause. We need to find the cure.
6
Plus with a cure, we get the extra advantages of clean air for our children to breathe and we oil independence from the Middle East.
Seems like a win-win.
Seems like a win-win.
5
We know the cure. Phase out using fossil fuels, while ensuring renewable energy is encouraged. More efficient internal combustion engines. There is much that can be done.
The issue is that the fossil fuel industry and their supporters, are behaving like the tobacco and asbestos industries. They keep muddying the waters by claiming their industry is not the problem.
The right wing have gone so far as to suggest all national scientific bodies have been got at. All climate data has been doctored to show there is global warming, when none exists. Government funded scientists continue to receive billions in funding to lie about global warming, while fossil fuel funded scientists are ethically pure and work for a pittance to tell the truth. Even the UN wants to take over the world through the cult of global warming.
Just like many Trump supporters, climate change deniers are not going to change their stance. It is an article of faith for them of limited education, to stick it to academic experts.
Who needs facts and peer reviewed scientific data, when any individual can have their totally unsubstantiated thought bubbles, and have them circulated to millions.
Follow the money to see how the fossil fuel industry continues to deny reality.
The issue is that the fossil fuel industry and their supporters, are behaving like the tobacco and asbestos industries. They keep muddying the waters by claiming their industry is not the problem.
The right wing have gone so far as to suggest all national scientific bodies have been got at. All climate data has been doctored to show there is global warming, when none exists. Government funded scientists continue to receive billions in funding to lie about global warming, while fossil fuel funded scientists are ethically pure and work for a pittance to tell the truth. Even the UN wants to take over the world through the cult of global warming.
Just like many Trump supporters, climate change deniers are not going to change their stance. It is an article of faith for them of limited education, to stick it to academic experts.
Who needs facts and peer reviewed scientific data, when any individual can have their totally unsubstantiated thought bubbles, and have them circulated to millions.
Follow the money to see how the fossil fuel industry continues to deny reality.
11
The Koch Brothers are behind all this. They believe in brainwashing. Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer if you need facts to verify it.
This is SERIOUSLY dangerous, folks. SERIOUSLY. What does it cost these billionaires to print 2, 3, or 9 hundred thousand booklets and mail them? Pittance. What does it cost us in rational behavior? You cannot calculate the cost for generations.
The people who make money from fossil fuel are frightened. They do not want clean energy. You cannot trust that public school teachers understand science, even the ones who teach it. Remember Jan Leno's "Jay Walking" Some of the answers given to him to questions that everyone should easily know were astounding.
Those who are "conservative" (that is, against science), and those who are "religious" in a fundamentalist christian sense, are the reason the billionaires have succeeded in their 40 year old pursuit of their libertarian agenda. No government intervention of any kind, anywhere for any reason. Reliance only on those who are successful and wealthy (and let the other eat cake) and greed is good. Tax cuts for the rich, and profits will roll in and be shared with the lower income people. And the moon is made of blue cheese. There's a bridge in Brooklyn that you can get really cheap, too.
If you know anyone who teaches science, speak up! Let them know what's really going on in the booklet and in general.
This is SERIOUSLY dangerous, folks. SERIOUSLY. What does it cost these billionaires to print 2, 3, or 9 hundred thousand booklets and mail them? Pittance. What does it cost us in rational behavior? You cannot calculate the cost for generations.
The people who make money from fossil fuel are frightened. They do not want clean energy. You cannot trust that public school teachers understand science, even the ones who teach it. Remember Jan Leno's "Jay Walking" Some of the answers given to him to questions that everyone should easily know were astounding.
Those who are "conservative" (that is, against science), and those who are "religious" in a fundamentalist christian sense, are the reason the billionaires have succeeded in their 40 year old pursuit of their libertarian agenda. No government intervention of any kind, anywhere for any reason. Reliance only on those who are successful and wealthy (and let the other eat cake) and greed is good. Tax cuts for the rich, and profits will roll in and be shared with the lower income people. And the moon is made of blue cheese. There's a bridge in Brooklyn that you can get really cheap, too.
If you know anyone who teaches science, speak up! Let them know what's really going on in the booklet and in general.
13
Yes, that's 97%. Here's how John Cook got this 97% number:
Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate. Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it. Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.
In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.
Cook analyzed the abstracts of 11,944 peer-reviewed papers on global warming published between 1991 and 2011 to see what position they took on human influence on the climate. Of those papers, just over 66 percent, or 7,930, took no position on man-made global warming. Only 32.6 percent, or 3,896, of peer-reviewed papers, endorsed the “consensus” that humans contribute to global warming, while just 1 percent of papers either rejected that position or were uncertain about it. Cook goes on to claim that of those papers taking a position on global warming (either explicitly or implicitly), 97.1 percent agreed that humans to some degree contribute to global warming.
In terms of peer-reviewed papers, the “97 percent consensus” is really the “32.6 percent consensus” if all the studies reviewed are taken into account.
1
A citation for your claims?
2
The author of this piece makes broad statements, but refuses to provide any detail. In addition, they make odd statements that only confuse the average reader.
"...disputes the methods [...] provides no definitive counterarguments." Arguing that somebody is making a false claim does not require arguing the opposite of what they are saying.
"...survey after survey [...] finds a strong consensus..." Good thing we don't rely on surveys to determine scientific facts, otherwise we may still believe the earth is flat.
"...none have the publication record of an accomplished expert in the field." This is a statement intended to convince a reader without presenting any facts at all. What specifically comprises a "publication record of an accomplished expert"?
It's pieces like this that make climate "skeptics", because it's yet another drone trying to make the same tired non-arguments with non-facts about a non-problem.
"...disputes the methods [...] provides no definitive counterarguments." Arguing that somebody is making a false claim does not require arguing the opposite of what they are saying.
"...survey after survey [...] finds a strong consensus..." Good thing we don't rely on surveys to determine scientific facts, otherwise we may still believe the earth is flat.
"...none have the publication record of an accomplished expert in the field." This is a statement intended to convince a reader without presenting any facts at all. What specifically comprises a "publication record of an accomplished expert"?
It's pieces like this that make climate "skeptics", because it's yet another drone trying to make the same tired non-arguments with non-facts about a non-problem.
Does it really matter whether climate change is mainly due to human activity or not? Shouldn't we be willing to fight climate change even if it is mainly from natural causes? Don't we feel there is plenty of evidence from the past and present to connect, say, sea level rise to rising concentrations of greenhouse gases? Should we waste more time arguing about its main cause when we should be acting against the re-submergence and consequences to the millions of people living in New Orleans, Miami, the Florida Keys, the Bahamas, and other islands and coastal cities? The scientific evidence of past sea levels (20-30meters higher than today, under which the Bahamas formed!) along with the clear relationships of atmospheric carbon dioxide and past ice ages (ice melts and sea levels rise when carbon dioxide increases!) should be enough to sow doubt in the cause of the climate change deniers. It should also be enough to convince educators that there is a solid connection and a genuine risk to humans and businesses if this lesson is not taught.The current, charged debate about forecasting models and assigning blame for the gases and warming, although important, can be confusing and distracting. As other writers have posed, if we were drifting in a boat, fishing in a river with our families, and we heard the sound of rapids (or a waterfall!) growing louder, would we keep fishing or come to the shore? I think most of us would pack our gear and urge other boats to as well.
1
There have been many historical hoaxes that have been detrimental to the well being of humanity, but the most destructive hoax continues to be religion, not all religions, but religious fundamentalism is the prime villain.
9
Seems to me that arguing with stupid is a waste of time but at the same time it seems disengenuous for scientists to not raise the issue of human overpopulation as a major contributing factor. Let's tackle this issue as part of a solution to man made global warming.
5
We continue on our slippery slope to being the least educated populace in the developed world. Sad.
12
I hope these books are packaged along with bibles, just to make the controversy complete for the children. Nothing like a solid start for all of them. That way when the end does come, they'll be glad. Poor kids.
3
Anyone remember that the heartland institute also claimed that smoking did not do any harm to smokers.
5
Just as most high school math teachers are not mathematicians, gym teachers are not athletes, political science teachers are not politicians, most all science teachers are not scientists. Most have a degree in education, many with a smattering of science background and many are untrained in critical scientific thinking and analysis.
It would be interesting to know the political party and religious affiliation of the 30% promulgating the climate change hoax along with creationism. Very unlikely that their teaching has any basis in science and is simply an extension of their private political and religious beliefs.
It would be interesting to know the political party and religious affiliation of the 30% promulgating the climate change hoax along with creationism. Very unlikely that their teaching has any basis in science and is simply an extension of their private political and religious beliefs.
48
This gets to the core. American teachers are not from the highest ranks of scholars. It is sad.
3
As a child, I believed the scientific consensus that DDT was causing the thinning of the eggs of eagles, that it was long lived in the environment and that its continued use would lead to a Silent Spring. When, as an adult, I studied the use of gas chromatography, I was devastated to learn that the technology had been misunderstood during the 1960's and 1970's when it was used to erroneously identify DDT. DDT was virtually banned worldwide as a result of mistakes on the part of a few scientists, and the scientific community never brought the error to the attention of the public.
Public policy was determined on the basis of erroneous scientific information. Tens of millions of innocents have died of yellow fever and malaria as a consequence. More toxic and more expensive pesticides are now being used.
Consensus is not an element of the scientific method, it is a political process. Mr. Stager is misrepresenting the science and is overstating and engaging in hyperbole by repeating the degree to which there is a consensus in the scientific community.
Public policy was determined on the basis of erroneous scientific information. Tens of millions of innocents have died of yellow fever and malaria as a consequence. More toxic and more expensive pesticides are now being used.
Consensus is not an element of the scientific method, it is a political process. Mr. Stager is misrepresenting the science and is overstating and engaging in hyperbole by repeating the degree to which there is a consensus in the scientific community.
They sent one of these to me. It basically takes the same approach as any pseudoscience propaganda, which is to promote the smallest sliver of evidence that goes against the vast majority of evidence pointing to the simplest explanation. Helping people use critical thinking is why I wanted to teach in the first place, so they can look through smoke screen material like this joke of a book.
9
Perhaps the book could actually be a study guide as the anti-critical thinking.
In any case, thanks teacher, for commenting and for your stance, and for what you do-- every day-- to teach our children well.
In any case, thanks teacher, for commenting and for your stance, and for what you do-- every day-- to teach our children well.
3
The author plays with the old 97% figure as if it really ever had any merit in its claim/implication. Everyone with even the most basic scientific knowledge knows that our climate is changing, just as it has since the beginning or earth's history. Anyone who has followed the 97% claims also knows that they have been thoroughly refuted. In fact in surveys such as Cook's, he couldn't even find 97 scientists to agree with his claim!
If this author is a scientist as claimed, then he already knows that the alarmist agenda is entirely political and that is the reason for the overwhelming influence of the totally political UN.
Rather than the useless and weak ad hominem attacks on those with whom he disagrees, why not instead point out "specifically" where they have misused science or are wrong.
Such silly attacks are not scientific. They are simply childish...
If this author is a scientist as claimed, then he already knows that the alarmist agenda is entirely political and that is the reason for the overwhelming influence of the totally political UN.
Rather than the useless and weak ad hominem attacks on those with whom he disagrees, why not instead point out "specifically" where they have misused science or are wrong.
Such silly attacks are not scientific. They are simply childish...
So rising seas don't concern you? Mass human migration due to drought and plague doesn't make you fear for your own security? Take the cause out of the discussion-- do you feel better about efforts to affect change, while we still can?
4
The author early statement, "The book ... presents the false premise that the evidence for human-driven climate change is deeply flawed ..." basically sums up what we already know. Fanatic Christian-Right is not interested in the truth and science any more than Khomeini and ISIS.
4
These people at Heartland Institute have children, too.
How can they do that to the future of their own children?
How can they do that to the future of their own children?
3
Where did funding for the book and for Heartland come from?
1
I can't wait to add it to my collection of fairy tales.
This is why we need national educational standards. Truth and facts don't change from blue states to red. The propaganda from the Heartland Institute should not be taught in schools, and any teacher who does needs to stop or be fired. It's a competitive world, and we can't compete with an ignorant work force.
60
Agree. I also don't think that any political or social or religious group should be able to send their propaganda towards the schools.
1
On the other hand, using propaganda to teach the difference between propaganda and real science is an excellent use of this book, as one teacher who commented here has already said they will do.
2
Please do some more reporting on the backers of the Heartland Institute. It would be interesting to find out who is supporting them.
97
You can wait for the NYT to do this research for you or - as I had done in a heartbeat upon reading of Heartland, you could do some of the heavy lifting yourself by merely Googling these self-aggrandizing, corporate lackey frauds.
3
Information in Wikipedia points to Koch family, as one source.
Finding sources of funding for the Heartland Institute isn't too hard.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Funding
It's a "who's who" of right-wing ideologues and wealthy families and corporations with strong ties to the tobacco and oil industries.
Only interested in "education?" Not a chance....
\
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute#Funding
It's a "who's who" of right-wing ideologues and wealthy families and corporations with strong ties to the tobacco and oil industries.
Only interested in "education?" Not a chance....
\
2
Guess they never heard of the Industrial Revolution?! The world has enough stupid people and by God, now we are getting more! No thanks! God is a fantasy just as the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus and needs to sent back into the stone ages with the rest of these fantasies. This IS the 21st century NOT the first century! Come out of the dark ages and away from the fantasy world of "Father Knows Best" or "Leave It To Beaver." Life is not a so called reality show, small minded NASCAR race, a beerhall, a church, or a myopic football game or political campaign where my team beats yours and too bad for you. Come into the 21st century!
22
Science is for 'elites'. Those self righteous prigs who want to make it harder for good ole boys to continue to exploit and destroy finite resources.
Opinion is all that matters.
For example, let's just deny the law of gravity (In my opinion it is given too much weight !)
Then- jump off the roof.
See what happens.
Opinion is all that matters.
For example, let's just deny the law of gravity (In my opinion it is given too much weight !)
Then- jump off the roof.
See what happens.
27
The purposeful spreading of misinformation, or in this case blatant propaganda, is reminiscent of Nazi Germany's strategy to blind the public to further their agenda. To target the education of the future of the United States is something that anyone with any sense would be ashamed of. Teacher's must submit their curriculum, and if they teach their students that 2 2=5 then they wouldn't be allowed to teach. How is this any different? Very rarely does the scientific community unite behind a theory or statement in the numbers that they do with the theory of human caused climate change. It's time we stop allowing misinformation to spread because it's "political". Science is not political, that's the beauty of it. Science is fact and does not discriminate whether you're a democrat or republican.
25
An opinion, spouted by a shameless scoundrel, and backed by someone with an agenda and a buck carries as much weight as thousands of scientists and tons of data? Why would someone do this?
Perhaps they believe in the rapture. Maybe they need the money so badly because they are supporting an orphanage in Uganda. Is a tumor growing in their brain that turns off their humanity? Were they beaten as children? Are they victims of extortion?
I want to believe something other than there are those so heartless they are willing to sell out the human race for short term profits.
Perhaps they believe in the rapture. Maybe they need the money so badly because they are supporting an orphanage in Uganda. Is a tumor growing in their brain that turns off their humanity? Were they beaten as children? Are they victims of extortion?
I want to believe something other than there are those so heartless they are willing to sell out the human race for short term profits.
13
For the past 10 years I have been a co-teacher in Mendocino, CA School of Natural Resources(SONAR) program. We teach a curriculum combining environmental science with environmental literature, which I teach. Students are taught to work in nature to develop experiments that count salmon populations, work on habitat restoration, and understand the influence of invasive species. In addition to reading John Muir, Rachel Carson, Daniel Quinn, Robert Sapolsky and other ecologists, field scientists, and earthly philosophers, students read extensively in climate studies and the history of changes in earthly ecology. They are encouraged to understand the scientific method and to insist on peer review. Nowhere are they told to rate specious propaganda over truth. I hope these MORONS from the Heartland Institute face a Nürnberg-style inquiry sometime in the post-apocalyptic future asking why they spread rubbish to benefit corporate interests while the planet continued burning. They should have to answer Dr. Guy MacPherson's simple question--"If you really think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money."
22
Wonderful curriculum! Thank you for being a teacher who knows what kids, for their sake, need to learn.
4
> We teach a curriculum combining environmental science with environmental literature, which I teach.
So they don't need university-level math, physics, biology, climatology, geology, astronomy, etc., to understand environmental science, like the scientists who presumably wrote those studies? This is Leftist educational fraud and political propaganda, as destructive as its Rightist equivalent. Classical education has problems, but its vastly better than this mind-disintegration.
Abolish socialist schools and parents can directly pay for education, prayer, political propaganda, whatever. Leftists are discovering that govt schools captured by conservatives teach conservatism. It will increase as this culture continues increasing religion. The boomerang is swinging back. Capitalist schools serve paying parents, not democratic majorities. Schools should not be political footballs, careening amidst various political values.
So they don't need university-level math, physics, biology, climatology, geology, astronomy, etc., to understand environmental science, like the scientists who presumably wrote those studies? This is Leftist educational fraud and political propaganda, as destructive as its Rightist equivalent. Classical education has problems, but its vastly better than this mind-disintegration.
Abolish socialist schools and parents can directly pay for education, prayer, political propaganda, whatever. Leftists are discovering that govt schools captured by conservatives teach conservatism. It will increase as this culture continues increasing religion. The boomerang is swinging back. Capitalist schools serve paying parents, not democratic majorities. Schools should not be political footballs, careening amidst various political values.
1
Nowhere did the teacher say they do NOT teach the sort of classes that you suggest; he was talking about the class that HE teaches. BTW though, this is a high school program so university level classes might be a bit beyond these kids.
1
I'm dumbfounded. How in the world did the author, Curt Sager--and his editor--think it was ok to print this op-ed without any background on the Heartland Institute? They're clearly the evil source behind the production and distribution of this book, but who they are and who funds them was left out of the piece.
9
Curt Stager is a scientist and college professor. He gets by, like most working middle class folks, through hard work and dedication. Some would describe him as "salt of the earth" or the "guy you could have a beer with."
3
For the past 10 years I have been a co-teacher in Mendocino, CA School of Natural Resources(SONAR) program. We teach a curriculum combining environmental science with environmental literature, which I teach. Students are taught to work in nature to develop experiments that count salmon populations, work on habitat restoration, and understand the influence of invasive species. In addition to reading John Muir, Rachel Carson, Daniel Quinn, Robert Sapolsky and other ecologists, field scientists, and earthly philosophers, students read extensively in climate studies and the history of changes in earthly ecology. They are encouraged to understand the scientific method and to insist on peer review. Nowhere are they told to rate specious propaganda over truth. I hope these MORONS from the Heartland Institute face a Nürnberg-style inquiry sometime in the post-apocalyptic future asking why they spread rubbish to benefit corporate interests while the planet continued burning. They should have to answer Dr. Guy MacPherson's simple question--"If you really think the economy is more important than the environment, try holding your breath while you count your money."
2
The next target for the resistance should be the dumbing down of America. Good teachers will see it for what it is and use it for developing critical thinking skills, fact checking and awareness of propaganda. No wonder we have dropped in Science and Technology and depend on foreign scientists to fill the gaps left in these fields; oh wait, due to Trump and his Jackboot Immigration enforcement, they are reluctant to come to the USA now. I see a former world power sinking even further in the future.
7
I am an ex-research scientist (fast breeder reactors) and a firm believer in the dangers of fossil fuels, but Paul Smith's College???
5
Paul Smith's College may not be as famous as some, but it is a very reputable college in New York State's Adirondacks, specializing in environmental science and its applications (as well as some tourism-related departments. ) It is in the town of Paul Smiths, which was named for a legendary hunting lodge from the 1800s that was one of the first to bring people to what is now the Adirondack Park. Yes, it is named for a person but so are several great universities.
5
Whatever people "believe" mother nature bats last - as Rob Watson said so succinctly. Right now she is just warming up.
11
I am an public school environmental science teacher who wrote a detailed chapter-by-chapter rebuttal of this book. It has been viewed over 20,000 times. See it here http://sustainableschoolteacher.blogspot.com/2017/04/an-open-letter-to-t...
25
Thank you for your service!
14
Why do these so called scientists disagree with global warming? Money.
11
As a university professor, the scent of pseudo-science-propaganda was detectable within 15 seconds of opening the cover of this book, at which time it began its graceful arc into my waste bin.
19
I find such materials also make for good kitty litter.
4
What a scary time we live in when facts no longer matter.
8
Welcome to the Great Farce: Big Coal in Kentucky has had a longtime presence in classrooms. The former president of the Kentucky Coal Association, Bill Bisset, even has a doctorate in (you guessed it) Education. http://www.marshall.edu/jmc/my-degree-in-jmc/bill-bissett/
4
If this article represents the substantiated, intellectual acumen of teachers, we have much to fear from teachers themselves. At least in the opinion of this climate change believer
4
Did ice not cover most of Europe once? I was taught about the coming "ice age" in school 50 years ago. Yes, there is currently warming but is it anthropogenic? Let's consume responsibly and reduce pollution, but the science is far from proven IMHO.
I was in school 50 years ago, and we learned about greenhouse gases building up in the atmosphere and causing the planet to warm. The science on that HAS NOT CHANGED. Look it up. Nothing about a coming ice age.
You sure you didn't dream that?
You sure you didn't dream that?
5
Climate change is coming for you, too, New Zealand, as far away as you are.
2
If we all agree, gravity will work when we want and as we want, the sun will not rise unless we want, and all the climate change deniers will be correct. That's how it works, yes? Natural forces are altered as God wills, daily, correct?
I have no idea what people like those with the Heartland Institute think that they are doing. Do they really think that climate change can be prevented by denying that it is confirmed by science? The effects of warmed up seas and atmosphere are already being displayed and the effects are extreme climate and weather conditions, just as predicted. If the concentration of carbon gases does not decrease, a lot, during the next few years, the seas may rise and the storms will be worse, areas that are besides dry latitudes will dry out, and all the changes will cost all of us a lot because we will have to replace lost infrastructures and properties. There will be migrations of people fleeing depleted lands and people trying to drive them away. So what is the point in denying what science is telling us about climate change and man made carbon gases at high concentrations in the air?
I have no idea what people like those with the Heartland Institute think that they are doing. Do they really think that climate change can be prevented by denying that it is confirmed by science? The effects of warmed up seas and atmosphere are already being displayed and the effects are extreme climate and weather conditions, just as predicted. If the concentration of carbon gases does not decrease, a lot, during the next few years, the seas may rise and the storms will be worse, areas that are besides dry latitudes will dry out, and all the changes will cost all of us a lot because we will have to replace lost infrastructures and properties. There will be migrations of people fleeing depleted lands and people trying to drive them away. So what is the point in denying what science is telling us about climate change and man made carbon gases at high concentrations in the air?
7
So, what's the difference between acknowledging the problem and pretending we can do something to solve it, on the one hand, and denying the problem, on the other hand? They seem pretty much the same to me. The difference is that by denying the global warming problem we may enjoy our CO2-based global industrial economy with a clear conscience. Otherwise, we continue business as usual, but feel bad about it.
Does anybody really think we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to stop global warming? I haven't seen a practical plan that even comes close.
Does anybody really think we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly enough to stop global warming? I haven't seen a practical plan that even comes close.
1
"...by denying the global warming problem we may enjoy our CO2-based global industrial economy with a clear conscience."
Speak for yourself, Howard.
And just because YOU haven't seen a practical plan for stopping global warming, the rest of us should just throw up our hands and "enjoy our CO2-based global industrial economy"?
Way to care about the future, Howard. I'm guessing you have no children.
Speak for yourself, Howard.
And just because YOU haven't seen a practical plan for stopping global warming, the rest of us should just throw up our hands and "enjoy our CO2-based global industrial economy"?
Way to care about the future, Howard. I'm guessing you have no children.
2
post-truth = Relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief. (https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/post-truth)
Post-truth has been around forever, it is an indispensable ingredient of politics. It's just that no politician has ever been able to wield it as effectively and as extensively as Trump does.
The public has always been longing for snake oil salesmen who provide comfort and "security" by pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
What else is new?!
Post-truth has been around forever, it is an indispensable ingredient of politics. It's just that no politician has ever been able to wield it as effectively and as extensively as Trump does.
The public has always been longing for snake oil salesmen who provide comfort and "security" by pulling the wool over the public's eyes.
What else is new?!
5
To disregard overwhelming scientific evidence because you can't claim certainty is preposterous given the consequences. Even if you are not convinced wouldn't you want to hedge your bet and work to reverse the trend given that the future of our specie may be at stake?
7
Even if one presumes that human intervention has no effect on climate, is it not the sensible course to reduce emissions just in case? Common sense and prudence dictate this course.
7
This is the same heartland institute that long denied the connection between tobacco smoking and lung cancer. The evidence isn't all in they said. Too early to condemn a whole industry with less than complete data. Meanwhile people die. These guys should be accessories to murder. The same can be said of their climate change arguments. No decency at all.
13
The shrill rhetoric of many comments here leads me to think that climate change (like other "controversial" science topics) is really a clash of beliefs for most people. By belief I mean a position or statement accepted or embraced without true understanding. In that sense, "facts" (or as scientists might say, objective observations) don't matter much to either side, despite claims by both.
I am sure you know in your heart you are right, and on the side of science and reason, but unless you can explain the greenhouse effect in terms of quantitative radiant energy and thermodynamics, and in the context of atmospheric and earth science, you are a believer. You might be right, but your arguments really have no more validity than those of deniers.
I am sure you know in your heart you are right, and on the side of science and reason, but unless you can explain the greenhouse effect in terms of quantitative radiant energy and thermodynamics, and in the context of atmospheric and earth science, you are a believer. You might be right, but your arguments really have no more validity than those of deniers.
2
Well, we can start by looking at Tyndall's work in 1859.
You wouldn't directly know the difference in Co, but in Fl the evidence is in the salt water flowing into streets and parking lots daily, which is not how they were designed to be when they were constructed in ancient times, say.... 30 years ago. For you, perhaps understandably in the Rockies, its a matter of faith. For us, they are asking us to not believe our own lying eyes.
When agent orange sells Mar-A-Loco on some false pretense, (probably an outrageous assessment to redo the entire water & sewage infrastructure do to higher sea level) then you will know.... even he believes.
When agent orange sells Mar-A-Loco on some false pretense, (probably an outrageous assessment to redo the entire water & sewage infrastructure do to higher sea level) then you will know.... even he believes.
When/if you get seriously sick, do you go to a physician? Do you truly understand everything the physician does before you get treatment? Hypothetically, maybe you get a second or third opinion. The funny thing about climate change research is that there are a great many more opinions; that agree.
Most people listen to experts because it is not possible for everyone to be experts in everything. Listening to reputable experts in climate change (or medicine) makes sense. More so, many people understand the scientific method sufficiently and have an appreciation for the contributions that sciences has made to society to have an informed opinion that a 97% scientific consensus (with two different measures) is meaningful.
To answer your question, yes, I understand enough of the scientific method and thermodynamics (mechanical engineering PhD and DVM).
Most people listen to experts because it is not possible for everyone to be experts in everything. Listening to reputable experts in climate change (or medicine) makes sense. More so, many people understand the scientific method sufficiently and have an appreciation for the contributions that sciences has made to society to have an informed opinion that a 97% scientific consensus (with two different measures) is meaningful.
To answer your question, yes, I understand enough of the scientific method and thermodynamics (mechanical engineering PhD and DVM).
3
The level of the seas could rise many meters if the ice in the glaciers and the polar ice caps melted, and inundate many inhabited locations in the world. The shifting of climates which would occur with significant global warming would make many inhabited areas too dry to support big populations, and would drive many kinds of living things into ecosystems where they have never lived before, causing many kinds of disruptions. The strength of season storms from the oceans and of winds would increase a lot from the additional heat energy in the sea and air. Our planet would change and many man made systems from cities on the seas to highways and power and water infrastructure in low lying areas would be obliterated. The costs of just addressing the challenges of extreme weather and climate change could use up so much of the wealth created in economies across that there would not be any surplus wealth created for many decades. There really is no rational reason to deny climate change when the science confirms it, as it does today. Denying it will not prevent it from progressing, it just means that when the problems are finally addressed it will be for ones that might have been mitigated into less serious ones if addressed earlier.
2
I accept that the climate is gradually warming, even though the hockey-stick spike that has been frightening everyone for the past two decades does not seem to be panning out. But several issues espoused by global warming devotees greatly disturb me. First, the expensive "solutions" mandated in the Paris Accord, by self-admission, have no material impact on warming, yet will cost us $78 trillion by the year 2100. Why should we pay for solutions that do not work? Second, artificially raising the cost of energy will tend to propagate poverty. No one seems to be analyzing which is worse - rising temperatures or rising poverty. Third, no one mentions that global warming is not all bad. Higher temperatures will vastly improve the habitability and arability of the Northern Hemisphere land masses. Will this gain in economically viable land offset the loss of coastline? And since rich people own virtually all of the world's coastline, why would I want to pay higher energy prices in order to save Mar-a-Lago?
1
Why is it a given that raising the cost of energy propagates poverty? There are many, many local, sensible solutions to raise the quality of life of all. The reason why many have no weight behind them is that the powers that be are only interested in solutions (cars, roads, whatevers) that see all people first (and only) as consumers. In other words, if it's not making someone big money, forget about it. That is the obstacle. Try to stop people and their corporations from being greedy and seeing things only through their first world capitalist corporatist eyes.
2
These "deniers" are destroying this country. There are those nuts who are trying to force teachers to teach evolution as only a theory and pushing unnamed, but not harmless Biblical stories as "alternate theories". There are anti-vaxxers who are endangering the populace at large by their inane insistence on following Andrew Wakefield's lies. And now you have people pushing climate change as a hoax. No wonder, when the president' s advisor can go on TV and with a straight face say that the White House can have alternate facts. These science deniers, whatever their agendas, are living in some insane bubble and dragging down the country with them. When they say American kids can't compete with the rest of the world education-wise, you don't even have to wonder why.
23
I would welcome teaching evolution as a theory.
In Science, a theory is considered to the best current scientific explanation. Theories are not hunches or pipe dreams. An explanation under investigation is known as a hypothesis.
For example, Einstein's theories are more accurate formulations of Newton's laws.
In Science, a theory is considered to the best current scientific explanation. Theories are not hunches or pipe dreams. An explanation under investigation is known as a hypothesis.
For example, Einstein's theories are more accurate formulations of Newton's laws.
1
How can you equate advocating biblical creation with reasonable doubts about the quality of Global Climate Models? The first is a religious position and the latter is a reasonable scientific concern. The GCMs we currently have are highly incomplete and there is at this time no good model for cloud formation and the thermodynamic and climatic effects of dust and aerosols in the atmosphere.
As far as climate modeling goes we are at a pre-Newtonian state in our math and modeling.
No one doubts that CO2 retards radiation of heat in the infra red frequencies but we have yet to develop a proper model for the feed back effects in the climate process. This includes cloud formation and various dusts and aerosols that alter the earth's albedo.
As far as climate modeling goes we are at a pre-Newtonian state in our math and modeling.
No one doubts that CO2 retards radiation of heat in the infra red frequencies but we have yet to develop a proper model for the feed back effects in the climate process. This includes cloud formation and various dusts and aerosols that alter the earth's albedo.
> These "deniers" are destroying this country.
Here's a socialist who has morphed into national socialism.
Here's a socialist who has morphed into national socialism.
If they succeed it will not be the 'next generation' but the 'last generation'.
5
Climate change has always been a part of Earth's history. Our planet has been much colder than it is now, but it has also been much warmer. This is indicated by the fossil record. Currently, we are coming out of the last ice age. Are we accelerating this natural change? Is it because of burning fossil fuels?
Mass extinctions have happened on our planet several times and that may be in our future. No humans were on Earth during the past mass extinctions. Check this out:
www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events
Some scientists believe rises in carbon dioxide may have naturally occurred in the past, contributing to these mass extinctions.
There are many things we can do to improve the environment but concern about climate change might not be something we can avoid. If it is natural, as many scientists believe, we must put our efforts into engineering ways to grow food in warmer temperatures, etc. Preparing for the inevitable is better than blaming a natural process on carbon dioxide emissions.
I received one of the books mentioned. I have perused it casually. So far, I have not read anything I did not already know.
There are many things we can do to improve environmental quality.
Our budget is limited. That is why we have to really push to educate the public about what is natural and what is not. What can we do for the environment and what is out of our control?
Mass extinctions have happened on our planet several times and that may be in our future. No humans were on Earth during the past mass extinctions. Check this out:
www.bbc.co.uk/nature/extinction_events
Some scientists believe rises in carbon dioxide may have naturally occurred in the past, contributing to these mass extinctions.
There are many things we can do to improve the environment but concern about climate change might not be something we can avoid. If it is natural, as many scientists believe, we must put our efforts into engineering ways to grow food in warmer temperatures, etc. Preparing for the inevitable is better than blaming a natural process on carbon dioxide emissions.
I received one of the books mentioned. I have perused it casually. So far, I have not read anything I did not already know.
There are many things we can do to improve environmental quality.
Our budget is limited. That is why we have to really push to educate the public about what is natural and what is not. What can we do for the environment and what is out of our control?
1
Read the article; you may learn something if there's even a crack in that closed mind. See particulary the paragraph that includes the words "recent warming is not simply a result of natural variability or cycles." You appear to think that if high levels of CO2 produced warming and extinctions in the past, humans can't have anything to do with it now.
That's wrong. It's a logical fallacy. Get over it.
Yes, the planet has had high levels of CO2 in the past; the nearest all life on earth has come to extinction, at the end of the Permian, at least twice (end Permian, end Triassic) led to mass extinctions. Now we're on the path of changing the nature of the atmosphere OURSELVES by a massive increase in
That's wrong. It's a logical fallacy. Get over it.
Yes, the planet has had high levels of CO2 in the past; the nearest all life on earth has come to extinction, at the end of the Permian, at least twice (end Permian, end Triassic) led to mass extinctions. Now we're on the path of changing the nature of the atmosphere OURSELVES by a massive increase in
2
What is NOT natural is releasing CO2 that was concentrated over hundreds of millions of years, in the form of fossil fuels, all at once over several decades, by a population of billions, doubling every generation or two. 3 billion people when I was in grade school. Now we are at 7.3, and closing in on 8.5 by 2030 and 9.7 in 2050. All increasingly burning fossil fuels.
Things are changing drastically faster right now than ever before in the fossil record, yes, with the possible exception of the mass extinction 60 million years ago caused by giant asteroid hit... which killed all the dinosaurs, except for birds.
If you do not know the science, do yourself a favor and go to scientific sources, e.g. "Scientific American" which publishes journals of actual peer reviewed science, or similarly valid, provable content. (Exxon's damning data appeared there in 1977). There is no doubt, we are in big trouble and we are causing it, right now. Yes, we have choices, but those options, e.g. renewables, do not benefit the Koch Brothers or Exxon, in who's financial interest it is to (heavily) finance disinformation. And to buy politicians.
If you think switching to renewables is expensive (which it is not), you're in for a rude awakening on the cost of trying to hold back the ocean/ relocating whole swaths of population centers to higher ground, as the current property values go to zero.
But thanks to swindlers at the top, that now seems to be where we are unavoidably going.
Things are changing drastically faster right now than ever before in the fossil record, yes, with the possible exception of the mass extinction 60 million years ago caused by giant asteroid hit... which killed all the dinosaurs, except for birds.
If you do not know the science, do yourself a favor and go to scientific sources, e.g. "Scientific American" which publishes journals of actual peer reviewed science, or similarly valid, provable content. (Exxon's damning data appeared there in 1977). There is no doubt, we are in big trouble and we are causing it, right now. Yes, we have choices, but those options, e.g. renewables, do not benefit the Koch Brothers or Exxon, in who's financial interest it is to (heavily) finance disinformation. And to buy politicians.
If you think switching to renewables is expensive (which it is not), you're in for a rude awakening on the cost of trying to hold back the ocean/ relocating whole swaths of population centers to higher ground, as the current property values go to zero.
But thanks to swindlers at the top, that now seems to be where we are unavoidably going.
1
Natural climate change is much slower than human-induced climate change, and the present human population uses so much of the planet's existing photosynthetic capacity that it hasn't got much margin for error.
2
As a classroom teacher, the book will be used to teach a social skills unit on lying and deception. Granted the next 4 years will have no shortage of materials.
30
Two things puzzle me after reading this article.
Why are liberals so averse to exploring the other side of debates? The comments here indicate that they rejected the mere thought of even reading this short book in order to understand its contents. How can you reasonably refute someone's ideas if you don't even know what they are? What are they afraid of?
The second part of the puzzle is the 97% thing. When was the last time you saw a poll in which only 3% of the participants were in the negative? Even the Republicans in Congress cannot agree on anything to the 97% level. I would think that curious critical thinkers would be skeptical of any group that claims that it agrees on anything to that degree of certainty. Well, come to think of it, Saddam Hussein received more than 99% of the vote in his last election.
Why are liberals so averse to exploring the other side of debates? The comments here indicate that they rejected the mere thought of even reading this short book in order to understand its contents. How can you reasonably refute someone's ideas if you don't even know what they are? What are they afraid of?
The second part of the puzzle is the 97% thing. When was the last time you saw a poll in which only 3% of the participants were in the negative? Even the Republicans in Congress cannot agree on anything to the 97% level. I would think that curious critical thinkers would be skeptical of any group that claims that it agrees on anything to that degree of certainty. Well, come to think of it, Saddam Hussein received more than 99% of the vote in his last election.
8
"Why are liberals so averse to exploring the other side of debates?" This complaint is easy: this is not a debate. This Heartland booklet is an attempt to bypass scientific authority and send propaganda directly to our children. The reason that is not a debate is that our children are not equipped to debate the topic. The are taught all of science in a year, at grade-school level, and hence spend maybe one day on this topic, if even that. There is no time for a debate.
Just enough time for teaching what the scientists think, and not what the tobacco lawyers think, about a scientific topic. I'm a little surprised that you thought this was about a scientific debate, and not about propaganda being sent directly to our children by the fossil fuels and tobacco lobby. It was pretty obvious what this essay was about, assuming you read it.
Just enough time for teaching what the scientists think, and not what the tobacco lawyers think, about a scientific topic. I'm a little surprised that you thought this was about a scientific debate, and not about propaganda being sent directly to our children by the fossil fuels and tobacco lobby. It was pretty obvious what this essay was about, assuming you read it.
3
There is no debate. The scientific consensus which is based in a large body of research is that global climate change due to human activity bus occurring. This isn't a liberal or conservative issue. It is an issue of basic scientific literacy. Ignorance is not a good long term strategy.
3
I belong to a +97% group (at least I think I do) that is persuaded by evidence that the sun does not revolve around the earth. Are you suggesting that I should be skeptical of this claim?
3
What makes people think that elementary teachers are teaching the facts now in places like Oklahoma, Texas, Louisiana,, Alaska and Arkansas? They most definitely are not, never have and, if they do, are warned then fired.
This book will change nothing, just reinforce existing curriculum in states that have never had any interest in teaching facts to anyone at any age. When they get back in class after celebrating "Confederate Day'.
This book will change nothing, just reinforce existing curriculum in states that have never had any interest in teaching facts to anyone at any age. When they get back in class after celebrating "Confederate Day'.
6
Evangelicals can't handle the truth.
Skills in critical thinking would be the demise of religious fundamentalism.
Skills in critical thinking would be the demise of religious fundamentalism.
1
"R-E-L-A-X"
--Aaron Rodgers
Any teacher or anyone else for that matter who's dumb enough to believe this mailing, doesn't have the brain power to do anything about global warming anyway. Be thankful that 97% of the scientists DO believe it because they're the only ones who can really fix it.
--Aaron Rodgers
Any teacher or anyone else for that matter who's dumb enough to believe this mailing, doesn't have the brain power to do anything about global warming anyway. Be thankful that 97% of the scientists DO believe it because they're the only ones who can really fix it.
5
As always, follow the money.
11
So there is a well funded effort by the Koch Brothers and other wealthy fossil fuel tycoons to sow doubt about their industries contribution to climate change. Why isn't there a similar, counter effort by scientists, universities, etc? It seems to me that they should also be sending out a booklet/DVD with the actual scientific community's consensus so that teachers have the information they need. It's time for the scientific community to get more active in this and persuade the public.
5
The same tactics were employed by the Tobacco industry.
1
Believe me, teachers, scientists et al are working on this every day. There are tons of awesome resources out there for any teacher with an inclination to do the research.
Assuming the name Heartland is indicative of its location, have to give them credit - they recognize that coastal locations are in harm's way from rising sea levels. If so, they may be cynical, but they aren't stupid.
5
Here's a good deconstruction. The NYT is late to the fair.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-s...
"The Heartland initiative dismisses multiple studies showing scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans are changing the climate. Even if human activity is contributing to climate change, the book argues, it “would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”
"The campaign elicited immediate derision from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit in Oakland, California that monitors climate change education in classrooms."
Heartland covered itself in shame with a poster comparing climate science to mass murder:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-...
"Ah... so that's it. They're victims in all of this. I'd have thought that if anyone is suffering battle fatigue, it's the scientists and reporters who receive hate-mail and death threats fueled by Heartland's campaign of distortion and innuendo.
"But maybe I'm wrong. Let's take a look at Heartland's strange behavior and see if we can identify signs of "battle fatigue"."
"they unveiled their zany billboard and bragged that it was just the first in a whole series designed to associate climate scientists -- and anyone who believes them -- with Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, and Osama bin Laden."
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/climate-change-skeptic-group-s...
"The Heartland initiative dismisses multiple studies showing scientists are in near unanimous agreement that humans are changing the climate. Even if human activity is contributing to climate change, the book argues, it “would probably not be harmful, because many areas of the world would benefit from or adjust to climate change.”
"The campaign elicited immediate derision from the National Center for Science Education (NCSE), a nonprofit in Oakland, California that monitors climate change education in classrooms."
Heartland covered itself in shame with a poster comparing climate science to mass murder:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevezwick/2012/05/06/heartlands-unabomber-...
"Ah... so that's it. They're victims in all of this. I'd have thought that if anyone is suffering battle fatigue, it's the scientists and reporters who receive hate-mail and death threats fueled by Heartland's campaign of distortion and innuendo.
"But maybe I'm wrong. Let's take a look at Heartland's strange behavior and see if we can identify signs of "battle fatigue"."
"they unveiled their zany billboard and bragged that it was just the first in a whole series designed to associate climate scientists -- and anyone who believes them -- with Charles Manson, Fidel Castro, and Osama bin Laden."
9
The Heartless Institute is wasting time....That is the worst consequence of its
diversionary tactics...wasting time, when this problem needs addressing now. Wasting time is not just mean and contrary, it is stupid.
diversionary tactics...wasting time, when this problem needs addressing now. Wasting time is not just mean and contrary, it is stupid.
12
Why doesn't Heartland 'cut out the middle man' and just issue children's bedtime stories about how the evil scientists tried to hijack the truth in service to their communist ideology (except, with teddy bears)? If the child tells the parent that her teacher says different, the parent can claim 'your teacher is a socialist' to undermine her. In fact, why doesn't Heartland just undermine the parent's authority as well? "You can't trust any of them, Johnny. Not scientists, teachers, or parents. Luckily, we here are Heartland are going to raise you right, thanks to the generous support of the Koch Brothers and Philip Morris."
11
Is it prejudicial to be prejudiced against prejudice? Is it intolerant to be intolerant of the intolerant. The Right has got to go. Period.
18
And take their fairy tales with them.
"The bourgeoisie must be swept out of the way."
-Karl "200 million murders" Marx
-Karl "200 million murders" Marx
Stephen
You may want to take another pass at history.
Marx didn't kill anybody.
And if you're looking for a brutal economic system, take a closer look around Fairhaven.
To quote a brilliant political and economic mind of our day, "What, America is so perfect?"
You may want to take another pass at history.
Marx didn't kill anybody.
And if you're looking for a brutal economic system, take a closer look around Fairhaven.
To quote a brilliant political and economic mind of our day, "What, America is so perfect?"
The endless proliferation of unskeptical fake "skeptic" assertions, old and new, is exhausting and dishonest to an extreme. It threatens all of us. They crop up everywhere, no matter how many times they are answered with logical and well-documented information that reveals the truth.
The vast funding apparatus of big fossil, the Kochtopus (documented by Jane Mayer and others, her book Dark Money and in The New Yorker, among other resources) ensures that people without the time and/or knowledge to dig deep enough to find the false premises will continue to think there is something in it.
People need curiosity. The real skeptics are worldwide experts who have devoted their careers to study and knowledge.
They can look around and ask themselves if the world is changing. It is, and the direction of change is obvious, with increasing extremes of weather, rising sea levels, moving seasons, migrating species (all too many things like disease vectors, mosquitoes, forest destruction like pine beetles, poison ivy, kudzu, jellyfish, invading areas that lack the natural defense that time builds up). The warmer seasons are longer. The Arctic, Greenland, and glaciers are melting faster than expected.
But no matter how vast the expertise and credibility of the most expert science, there will always be "experts", contrarian (many are smokers), or willing to accept the pay of interested parties. Their Nobel may be in a different field, but perhaps they long for the spotlight.
The vast funding apparatus of big fossil, the Kochtopus (documented by Jane Mayer and others, her book Dark Money and in The New Yorker, among other resources) ensures that people without the time and/or knowledge to dig deep enough to find the false premises will continue to think there is something in it.
People need curiosity. The real skeptics are worldwide experts who have devoted their careers to study and knowledge.
They can look around and ask themselves if the world is changing. It is, and the direction of change is obvious, with increasing extremes of weather, rising sea levels, moving seasons, migrating species (all too many things like disease vectors, mosquitoes, forest destruction like pine beetles, poison ivy, kudzu, jellyfish, invading areas that lack the natural defense that time builds up). The warmer seasons are longer. The Arctic, Greenland, and glaciers are melting faster than expected.
But no matter how vast the expertise and credibility of the most expert science, there will always be "experts", contrarian (many are smokers), or willing to accept the pay of interested parties. Their Nobel may be in a different field, but perhaps they long for the spotlight.
7
We're just going to have to wait for the Earth to whack the moles.
2
More "Lies my Teacher Told Me" ? America has a rather checkered history in education around these issues of science, history and the Arts. One should remember the Oklahoma example of Angie Debo who wrote the truth in her doctoral dissertation about the political hacks who killed the Osage for their wealth and then funded the University. She was denied the degree but Princeton University Press picked up the book that became "And Still the Waters Run, The Betrayal of the Five Civilized Tribes" and a bestseller. OU relented and bought the copyright, gave her the degree and published the book out of sheer embarrassment.
My copy still says Princeton and her view on history is said to have changed the way historians look at Indians. I wonder about that. One wonders whether America has the ability to be embarrassed these days given the "goings on."
My copy still says Princeton and her view on history is said to have changed the way historians look at Indians. I wonder about that. One wonders whether America has the ability to be embarrassed these days given the "goings on."
8
This all reminds me of the intelligent design "debate" and the well funded and energetic attempts to deny evolution. That seems to have taken a bit of back seat lately in public discourse. Probably because its the same people now putting their resources into denying the impact of human activity on the global environment. The commentator referencing galileo was spot on. There is the truth - and then there is the "truth that the city holds"
5
Intelligent Design is bogus creationism disguised in a cheap suit. I haven't studied all of the thousands of religions, but the few supposed supreme beings I know of do not display exceptional scientific intelligence.
As an agnostic, I respect the teachings of Jesus but his expertise was in compassionate human relations which tend to be ignored by many supposed Christians.
As an agnostic, I respect the teachings of Jesus but his expertise was in compassionate human relations which tend to be ignored by many supposed Christians.
5
I wonder if those commenting here have bothered to take the time to read the book that is supposedly sowing climate doubt. I wonder how many here have spent any time actually investigating the data. I wonder how many simply accept the "evidence" for CC simply because they like the solutions offered by alarmists.
4
Baloney. Try Readers' Picks: quite a few teachers have taken a hard look. So have many other experts. This is not new, and it has been thorough debunked.
19
To become an Air Force meteorologist, Uncle Sam sent me to NYU for one year and MIT for two years. My thesis at MIT won the annual Rossby Award for the best doctoral thesis submitted in my graduation year.
An understanding atmospheric radiative processes requires some knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum physics. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the most important greenhouse gasses because of the wave lengths of the spectrum where they are active. The overwhelming bulk of our atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, both of which are very transparent in in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum where we receive solar energy, and in the near infrared where we exhaust, in the long run, an equal amount of energy.
I doubt if these facts are taught in many high schools. There are excellent books for laymen by such authors as Sir John Houghton, former chief editor of the IPCC reports.
An understanding atmospheric radiative processes requires some knowledge of thermodynamics and quantum physics. Water vapor and carbon dioxide are the most important greenhouse gasses because of the wave lengths of the spectrum where they are active. The overwhelming bulk of our atmosphere is oxygen and nitrogen, both of which are very transparent in in the visible part of the electromagnetic spectrum where we receive solar energy, and in the near infrared where we exhaust, in the long run, an equal amount of energy.
I doubt if these facts are taught in many high schools. There are excellent books for laymen by such authors as Sir John Houghton, former chief editor of the IPCC reports.
4
Christ Ralphie, I've seen monsoons fail and people go hungry, I've visited hungry people in East Africa because of drought, I've talked to orchardists who lost their crops because of warm winters. For example, in the mid-Atlantic this year, there were more days above 70 degrees than inches of snow. So Ralphie, do you have any experience outside the house? Have you looked at the data? Shame, shame!
7
Heartland is obviously acting on the assumption that public school teachers are gullible, pliable and completely unversed in the subjects they teach. I would think that any competent teacher would finds this latest right-wing ploy to be insulting to them and their students.
13
You have got to be kidding me. Roughly 97% of climatologists agree that humans have a significant affect on global warming, and this group crawls out of the woodwork to compromise elementary and secondary school teachers? I learned to love the scientific method in 9th grade, and today I am a highly educated RN---something I am reasonably sure would not have happened had my high school science teachers been passing along politically-motivated falsehoods. Save Our Kids from false information!
24
> Roughly 97% of climatologists agree that humans have a significant affect on global warming
"Significant" is a warm and fuzzy word to rationalize evading judgment on the "catastrophic warming" fraud. Leftists are literally hysterical (see posts here) over the decreasing possibility of destroying the politics of man's independent mind, capitalism. Mild global warming is good for man. The planet is no more important than a hammer for a carpenter.
"Significant" is a warm and fuzzy word to rationalize evading judgment on the "catastrophic warming" fraud. Leftists are literally hysterical (see posts here) over the decreasing possibility of destroying the politics of man's independent mind, capitalism. Mild global warming is good for man. The planet is no more important than a hammer for a carpenter.
I hope the Heartland folks are teaching their kids and grandkids how to swim... because they're going to need to.
10
Agreed, with continuous increases in the global spread of capitalist prosperity, there will be more swimming pools and more beach vacations.
I have confidence in natural selection... I hope the Heartland "folks" are not teaching their kids and grandkids to swim.
1
"Joseph Bast, who called global warming “another fake crisis” for Democrats “to hype to scare voters and raise campaign dollars.”
No,no,no.
Democrats don't try to scare voters. That is exclusively a Republican trait, tactic, and strategy. Republicans own it.
No,no,no.
Democrats don't try to scare voters. That is exclusively a Republican trait, tactic, and strategy. Republicans own it.
16
Any "science" teacher who thinks massaged data fed into inaccurate computer models is settled science should be fired immediately.
8
Please, fill us in on your credentials. Enlighten us on all you know about how these data were "massaged," and how the computer models are inaccurate to a point of uselessness. Better yet, please explain how increased levels of carbon dioxide, methane, and other greenhouse gasses produced by avoidable human activity aren't bad for the atmosphere. Please start by briefly reviewing the well-understood interaction between carbon dioxide and electromagnetic radiation at the quantum level for us simpletons, not to mention the work of Max Plank on equilibrium distributions as it is relevant.
Any noodlehead who continues to spout off about how the scientists are incorrect on this needs to earn a doctorate in physical chemistry. Perhaps then they will understand how ridiculous their argument is.
Any noodlehead who continues to spout off about how the scientists are incorrect on this needs to earn a doctorate in physical chemistry. Perhaps then they will understand how ridiculous their argument is.
5
You should explain what you mean by massaged data. Tell us how you think that the data has been altered and how that would change the result. Don't just start shouting about bad data because you don't find the data and the interpretation of the data aligning with your world view.
3
And you know this to be a fact due to your expertise in...?
1
Can the science teachers sue Heartland for this propaganda? I hope there is some legal recourse someone can take against this blatant attempt to propagandize our schools and our children.
9
No. They can't, and that's a good thing. Heartland is dishonest and manipulative, but the law does not exist to punish those who publish things that you don't (and that I don't) approve of.
5
The Enlightenment's respect for man's independent mind is done and gone in the fragmented Leftist mind.
Another anti-free press Leftist. Why not? Leftists are terrified of man's independent mind. See: North Korea.
The Koch brothers, like many who fund the GOP, oppose initiatives to reduce global warming because they make much money from oil. Agree?
The Koch brothers, like many who fund the GOP, oppose initiatives to reduce illegal immigration because they make much money from paying unskilled, undocumented, non-unionised workers as little as possible to work in hazardous environments. Agree?
You can't pick and choose your facts when it suits you. Agree?
The Koch brothers, like many who fund the GOP, oppose initiatives to reduce illegal immigration because they make much money from paying unskilled, undocumented, non-unionised workers as little as possible to work in hazardous environments. Agree?
You can't pick and choose your facts when it suits you. Agree?
8
If teachers do not have the mental capacity to understand the truth about climate change, they have no business being teachers. It is astonishing that in this country 30% of teachers are providing false information to students about climate change. But this seems like an exclusively American problem. Teachers and students in the rest of the developed world throughout Europe and Asia just teach and learn the scientific truth about climate change. The greasy, oily, slimy fossil fuel industry in America continues to be so slippery and dangerous!
12
I hate to have to put things in the stark terms of class conflict, but if we are about to grow a generation of young people who do not believe the facts on climate change, the ultimate blame lies with thirty years of decreasing taxes and reduced regulations on corporations and super-wealthy individuals.
Think tanks like the one producing this small book were born in the 1970s to fight government regulation and preach the neo-liberal ideology, and the government's retreat from regulation and tax cuts that began with Jimmy Carter has allowed these groups ever more wealth, and with it ever more resources to protect that wealth.
And even if you accept the argument that corporations cannot survive in a competitive world without deregulation and lower taxes (and here comes more of it with Trump's tax plan!), this doesn't belie the fact that the powers they've accrued since the 70s have made them more unassailable than at any time since the Great Depression.
(And of course we all know why the Democrats haven't done more to stop them--so they can fund their never-ending political campaign seasons, of course!)
So, what indisputable evidence of climate change can be found to convince skeptical voters that government (yes, government!) must take steps both to limit the impact of climate change AND reverse this concentration of power?
Maybe there is simply no such thing as 'indisputable evidence' any more, and therefore the question itself is moot. But let's hope not!
Think tanks like the one producing this small book were born in the 1970s to fight government regulation and preach the neo-liberal ideology, and the government's retreat from regulation and tax cuts that began with Jimmy Carter has allowed these groups ever more wealth, and with it ever more resources to protect that wealth.
And even if you accept the argument that corporations cannot survive in a competitive world without deregulation and lower taxes (and here comes more of it with Trump's tax plan!), this doesn't belie the fact that the powers they've accrued since the 70s have made them more unassailable than at any time since the Great Depression.
(And of course we all know why the Democrats haven't done more to stop them--so they can fund their never-ending political campaign seasons, of course!)
So, what indisputable evidence of climate change can be found to convince skeptical voters that government (yes, government!) must take steps both to limit the impact of climate change AND reverse this concentration of power?
Maybe there is simply no such thing as 'indisputable evidence' any more, and therefore the question itself is moot. But let's hope not!
5
Betsy DeVos is undoubtedly behind the Heartland mailers.
3
Unlikely, but she may contribute:
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
(Her brother is Erik Prince who founded the mercenary Blackwater.)
Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Heartland_Institute
(Her brother is Erik Prince who founded the mercenary Blackwater.)
Barbara and Barre Seid Foundation $1,037,977
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation $648,000
Exxon Mobil $531,500
Walton Family Foundation $400,000
Sarah Scaife Foundation $325,000
Charlotte and Walter Kohler Charitable Trust $190,500
Jaquelin Hume Foundation $166,000
Rodney Fund $135,000
JM Foundation $82,000
Castle Rock Foundation $70,000
Roe Foundation $41,500
John M. Olin Foundation $40,000
Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation $40,000
Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation $37,578
Armstrong Foundation $30,000
Hickory Foundation $13,000
Carthage Foundation $10,000
5
I can't think of a more sure and deliberate way to doom the planet than to teach children that climate change is not a consequence of our choices. Have these people no children????
12
The perfect publication to start book burning.
4
After reading this I'm just waiting for the book titled "True Science: the Earth is FLAT!" to come through the mail any moment.
I despair for the future of our kids.
I despair for the future of our kids.
10
so, what is the difference whether the earth is flat or not, if your horizon is that of a frog (sorry frogs, not many left).
With climate change, the train has long left the station, Heartland, what a name, jump in your Cadillac SUV, you wont catch it. Good luck for our future.
I had a good time --
the me-me-only people!
With climate change, the train has long left the station, Heartland, what a name, jump in your Cadillac SUV, you wont catch it. Good luck for our future.
I had a good time --
the me-me-only people!
2
The climate change disinformation campaign is similar to the tobacco industry's multi-decade public relations campaign. The campaigns are financed by the industries whose products are known or suspected to be dangerous to health and the environment. Industries that fund these campaigns include producers of fossil fuels, tobacco, foods, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, soft drinks, chocolate candy, and many more. The purpose is to maintain a positive image by overpowering and shutting out all criticism of their products. Nearly all of the worst offenders are members of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, which produces pro-business propaganda and serves them collectively as their lobbyist in Washington and all of the state legislatures.
10
MScott and other deniers:
Obviously there are experts who can cast doubt on anything. The same people worked for big tobacco for many years, denying that nicotine is addictive, questioning what addiction even is, denying that smoking is bad for your health. Those people are not interested in science. They are interested in making money (paid by big tobacco) from the people who sell cigarettes. And for many years, and today, people doubt that smoking is bad for you. Success! But disinterested parties from all over the world, whose interest is in science and the its benefits for humanity, who are sounding the alarm that rising CO2 levels will result in catastrophe, and is even now resulting in catastrophe (severe injury, death, property destruction) from violent storms and rising seas. Even a denier has to admit that perturbing a closed system will affect that system. Here, the closed system is Earth, and the perturbation is jacking up atmospheric CO2 levels. We know the properties of CO2 with respect to heat-trapping. Scientists collect the data and model it. The world agrees-human activity causes climate change. Rex Tillerson (but not his secret email alias) might publicly deny it, because they stand to lose money otherwise. Who are you going to believe?
Obviously there are experts who can cast doubt on anything. The same people worked for big tobacco for many years, denying that nicotine is addictive, questioning what addiction even is, denying that smoking is bad for your health. Those people are not interested in science. They are interested in making money (paid by big tobacco) from the people who sell cigarettes. And for many years, and today, people doubt that smoking is bad for you. Success! But disinterested parties from all over the world, whose interest is in science and the its benefits for humanity, who are sounding the alarm that rising CO2 levels will result in catastrophe, and is even now resulting in catastrophe (severe injury, death, property destruction) from violent storms and rising seas. Even a denier has to admit that perturbing a closed system will affect that system. Here, the closed system is Earth, and the perturbation is jacking up atmospheric CO2 levels. We know the properties of CO2 with respect to heat-trapping. Scientists collect the data and model it. The world agrees-human activity causes climate change. Rex Tillerson (but not his secret email alias) might publicly deny it, because they stand to lose money otherwise. Who are you going to believe?
4
For starters, the earth is not a closed system.
1
Follow the money is always good advice.
What the mainstream gets wrong about climate science deniers is the notion that if we were to simply provide a little more evidence that they would be convinced. The simple truth is that the deniers don't care that they (we) are destroying the environment. But it is easier and more palatable to deny the science rather than
2
What's missing from the article is the link! The link to the snappy, colorful, kid-friendly, glossy explanation of what climatologists have found and the consensus they have reached. Easy to comprehend material that makes the counter argument, ready to be shared in links, emailed or mailed to science teachers. Someone on the left must have the money to buy the stamps.
2
The issue critics get angered about isn't climate change per se. The climate is always in flux and has shifted many times. It also is quite right to presume that humans have had an impact on the rate of the present warming trend that has been in progress for the last few thousand years. What torques people is the tone of the environment lobby -- smug, all-knowing, elitist -- and the notion that only government and taxation can stop climate change. We all want a clean earth, and one that minimizes pollution, deforestation, over-population, and on and on. Just don't take a moral high ground on a lie that taxes and regs can reverse the warming trend.
3
In other words, sure climate change will be catastrophic for hundreds of millions of mostly poor people, but the real problem is that many who want to take strong action are godforsaken, big government liberals. Great priorities you got there. Besides, nobody says taxes and regs will "reverse the trend." It's already way too late for that. But aggressive, global government action may help flatten the curve. BTW, what's your alternative?
7
Nobody is talking about "reversal". It takes 100,000 years for carbon to cycled. The increased CO2 is now a permanent feature of the environment we, and our children , will live in.
We can stop the increase in CO2 emissions and hopefully mitigate the change. There is no necessity to burn every carbon fuel until exhausted.
If you prefer to have tire incineration done elsewhere then your front yard you support regulation and believe it curbs the problem. If you support any tax of any kind then you understand the purpose of taxation.
The problem needs to be dealt with and these are the primary tools at our disposal.
We can stop the increase in CO2 emissions and hopefully mitigate the change. There is no necessity to burn every carbon fuel until exhausted.
If you prefer to have tire incineration done elsewhere then your front yard you support regulation and believe it curbs the problem. If you support any tax of any kind then you understand the purpose of taxation.
The problem needs to be dealt with and these are the primary tools at our disposal.
5
Thank you for publishing this opinion piece. This man, Joseph Bast, was on the CBS Evening News on Earth Day, peddling his nonsense. CBS did not indicate that the Heartland Institute is a conservative think tank, nor did the reporter see fit to note the source of its funding. Bast's opinions were simply presented as an alternative view on climate change. I've been reading about "dark money" quite a bit lately, so I was skeptical of him. But how many people are aware of the influence of the oil and gas industry, and its money, on this debate? I realize that news programs are under pressure to present both sides of the issues, but it's crucial that they reveal their sources' backgrounds and interests.
8
The presence of unsubstantiated claims, bogus data, and total absence of the scientific method is no reason to either affirm or deny the reality of global warming.
Read the Health Section of the Times on any given day, and you'll find solid empirical evidence sitting right next to something akin to alchemy.
Read the Health Section of the Times on any given day, and you'll find solid empirical evidence sitting right next to something akin to alchemy.
2
Here's hoping more teachers read it and share it with their students.
Still waiting for that study with sufficient controls to isolate man-made-CO2 impact from natural solar cycle / geologic cycle natural variation. Still not buying that a 100 PPM increase in an almost entirely inert trace gas (0.04%) that also happens to be critical for life on this planet, is going to have dire and disastrous consequences ... especially when one considers that CO2 levels have risen and fallen with little correlation in climate variability throughout the Earth's geologic history. That is to say, there have been ice ages with far higher CO2 levels, and there have been peak inter-glacial warming periods with far lower CO2 levels. And the reverse has also been detected in the geologic record. Leads me to conclude CO2 is not the driver here.
The correlation Al Gore likes to show is the past 150 years which saw the end of the Maunder Minimum and mass industrialization coincide with one another, generating the appearance of CO2/Temp correllation
Still waiting for that study with sufficient controls to isolate man-made-CO2 impact from natural solar cycle / geologic cycle natural variation. Still not buying that a 100 PPM increase in an almost entirely inert trace gas (0.04%) that also happens to be critical for life on this planet, is going to have dire and disastrous consequences ... especially when one considers that CO2 levels have risen and fallen with little correlation in climate variability throughout the Earth's geologic history. That is to say, there have been ice ages with far higher CO2 levels, and there have been peak inter-glacial warming periods with far lower CO2 levels. And the reverse has also been detected in the geologic record. Leads me to conclude CO2 is not the driver here.
The correlation Al Gore likes to show is the past 150 years which saw the end of the Maunder Minimum and mass industrialization coincide with one another, generating the appearance of CO2/Temp correllation
2
Please state your credentials. What you say is non sensical. Why should I care what you conclude. CO2 is not an inert gas. In fact the increase in CO2 is causing measurable acidification of the ocean.
9
@David
Please state your credentials. A solution saturated with CO2 has that CO2 precipitate OUT of solution when warmed, i.e. see what happens with carbonated beverage when warmed. So explain to us why that is different with ocean water.
Please state your credentials. A solution saturated with CO2 has that CO2 precipitate OUT of solution when warmed, i.e. see what happens with carbonated beverage when warmed. So explain to us why that is different with ocean water.
1
CO2 is most definitely not an inert gas. And that is not even the biggest err in your comment.
2
After scanning through the book in question I find it far more credible than "studies" claiming a 97% consensus. I suspect most commenting here didn't bother to even look - for the disciples of the church of global warming (or climate change) viewing material contrary to dogma must be one of the deadly sins.
4
Yes, propaganda is always "credible" to the already convinced. The scary prospect is the exposure of students to this drivel, as some of them, especially with religiosity in their families, will eagerly believe it. The best that good teachers can do is use it as a teaching moment, to expose fake science and the money men behind it
5
The most alarming aspect of this story, from a public school teacher of nearly 30 years, is there are "educators" who will buy into this nonsense.
People often rail that our schools would be better if they were funded better. That's not the problem. It's the average intelligence of the people who work as teachers. They arrive in college un the lower 1/3 of their class (on average) and from my experience, aren't very curious or intellectually motivated individuals.
People often rail that our schools would be better if they were funded better. That's not the problem. It's the average intelligence of the people who work as teachers. They arrive in college un the lower 1/3 of their class (on average) and from my experience, aren't very curious or intellectually motivated individuals.
5
When you have a profession that is continually maligned and often the proverbial punching bag when it comes to taking away their funding, then is it really a surprise that educators are becoming less effective? Unless you have a strong desire to teach due to genuine interest and sense of civic duty, there aren't many incentives to go into education. Things like failing to increase payroll across the board for all teachers in your state multiple years in a row, tying much needed performance based scholarships to antiquated things like the SAT score a teacher received 30 years ago, and having benchmarks for "effectiveness" that are literally moving the acceptable line every year, are not ways to produce a stable and effective work force (all examples from my home state of Florida). Since we obviously still need teachers though (its not like another industry where ineffectiveness would shut it down), the qualifications then get relaxed to draw in those "dumb" enough to go into a woefully paid and red-tape filled industry. Thus we have teachers that are often less effective. You want the best, you incentivize for the best and make the field desirable for those who are unsure. Otherwise, more intelligent people are going to look at that industry as a black hole where you will never be able to make any headway no matter your background. Basically, if you treat education as a less than worthy career choice, as a whole it will become a less than worthy field.
2
I think it's time for a little language revision. Originally (I think) "think tank," meant an organization where professionals did to back up a particular political position. It was real research, if partisan. Places like the Heartland Institute are not think tanks. They are propaganda swamps. No, that would never fly. Maybe just "propaganda tank."
These are not places where research is done, or even thinking, other than about how to cleverly package lies.
These are not places where research is done, or even thinking, other than about how to cleverly package lies.
7
My climate change denier sister, who taught kindergarten through third grade for 30 years, does not believe that ice cores, undisturbed for hundreds of thousands of years, indicate an unnatural concentration of carbon in the very top layers, formed post-industrial age and coinciding with rapid climate change. She denies it as though it is part of a belief system she does not subscribe to. How does such a thing happen? I connect it to a pattern throughout her life of subsuming the process of thinking and reasoning to the stupid agendas of patriarchal ideology: in other words, religion. But her ignorance is also evidence that the education requirements for teachers must include much more rigor.
19
"But her ignorance is also evidence that the education requirements for teachers must include much more rigor."
As the old saying goes, DMS, "You can lead teachers to facts, but you can't make
them think."
As the old saying goes, DMS, "You can lead teachers to facts, but you can't make
them think."
1
Same for evangelicals.
This whole thing has become too complicated. In a grade-school course on geology, all students need to know and understand is the global warming potential of greenhouse gases as measured based on carbon dioxide. They’ll figure out the rest.
1
The issue is only concerning if schoolteachers can easily be influenced by misinformation. The silver lining: it provides teachers with an opportunity to provide arguments for their pupils to confront misinformation campaigns.
8
I forgive the op-ed author for not addressing the funding of Heatland. After all, he is a science professor, not someone interested in the funding sources. However, in this era of tax reform launched yesterday by President Trump, the abuses of non-profit funding also must be on the table. Under our current system, the original purposes of not-for-profit institutions are forgotten and abused. Nowadays, too many people and corporations -- on both sides of the political aisles -- get to launder money through "think tanks" like Heartland to push their special interest agenda, whether it be anti-climate change or pro-tobacco. This abuse cries out for reform.
12
I don't forgive the author for refusing to reveal the sources of his own funding. After all, if the funding of a book's publication is used to call into question the book's contents, then the funding of a professor's research can be used to call into question the professor's beliefs. After all, I'm positive Prof Stager would avoid biting the hand that feeds him. Because you think the same of the authors of the book Prof Stager denounces. Happens everywhere, right?
A short publication for teachers written by reputable climate scientists that offers a point-by-point refutation of "Why Scientist Disagree about Global Warming" would be invaluable. Does one exist, or is one in preparation?
It is not enough the Hartland Institute's underlying motives. Their critiques of current climate science need careful attention and scientific refutation.
It is not enough the Hartland Institute's underlying motives. Their critiques of current climate science need careful attention and scientific refutation.
8
The book "Why Scientists Disagree about Global Warming" was written by reputable climate scientists, and references articles written by reputable climate scientists. You should read the book so you can get a list of the climate scientists who wrote it (Idso, Singer, Carter) and the climate scientists whose work was referenced. It's pretty short, and it points out the differences between what the IPCC says, what the EPA says, what NASA says, what NOAA says, and what some actual non-biased research says.
There's no need for a "point-by-point" refutation - because the book itself is a point-by-point refutation of the reports of the IPCC, which is the self-acclaimed "authoritative" source for all reports on Global Warming.
There's no need for a "point-by-point" refutation - because the book itself is a point-by-point refutation of the reports of the IPCC, which is the self-acclaimed "authoritative" source for all reports on Global Warming.
"no need for a point by point refutation"? No need to look at the man behind that curtain, eh? What are you afraid of? That it can't stand up to counter argument? I thought you were all for finding the truth?
2
Singer is the only name I recognize and he is well known to be a paid shill,for big energy.
2
What evidence points to human-caused climate change?
CO2 levels increasing can not account for any large increase in global temperatures at the levels we are measuring. The CO2 absorbtion bands are already heavily saturated. It would take a massive increase in CO2 levels to cause any noticable increase in temperature, due to the logarithmic nature of IR absorbtion levels.
NASA has also published data showing similar temperature increases on other bodies in the solar system. Among others, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, and Pluto each have a similar warming trend, yet those number go largely ignored and unreported. There is theory, with corresponding evidence, that most measurable global warming in related to Solar activity, rather than human activity.
Granted, increased CO2 levels almost certainly contribute to the warming trend. However, until Solar activity, as evidenced by NASA's observations, is included in the models, and accounted for individually, I will consider the speculation that man is the primary contributor to climate change to be a deliberate hoax.
We now have two camps: "global warming deniers", and "solar warming deniers".
CO2 levels increasing can not account for any large increase in global temperatures at the levels we are measuring. The CO2 absorbtion bands are already heavily saturated. It would take a massive increase in CO2 levels to cause any noticable increase in temperature, due to the logarithmic nature of IR absorbtion levels.
NASA has also published data showing similar temperature increases on other bodies in the solar system. Among others, Mars, Jupiter, Titan, and Pluto each have a similar warming trend, yet those number go largely ignored and unreported. There is theory, with corresponding evidence, that most measurable global warming in related to Solar activity, rather than human activity.
Granted, increased CO2 levels almost certainly contribute to the warming trend. However, until Solar activity, as evidenced by NASA's observations, is included in the models, and accounted for individually, I will consider the speculation that man is the primary contributor to climate change to be a deliberate hoax.
We now have two camps: "global warming deniers", and "solar warming deniers".
3
Best evidence for global warming due to greenhouse gas IR capture (rather than from solar adsorption) comes from direct measurements showing negligible contributions of solar, sun-spot, and thermal intensity cycles on earth surface & water temps.
Mars has been characterized as having temperature cycles based on variations in surface color changes (from sand storms).
Jupiter is a gas planet that has its own endothermic cycles
Hopefully I'm wrong. But doesn't look like it.
Mars has been characterized as having temperature cycles based on variations in surface color changes (from sand storms).
Jupiter is a gas planet that has its own endothermic cycles
Hopefully I'm wrong. But doesn't look like it.
8
You are aware that NASA is 100% behind the science that humans are causing climate change?
5
You are aware that the GISS is 100% behind the science that humans are causing climate change, and that that's not 100% of NASA? And that the GISS is the part of the agency run by the eco-activist-dictator James Hansen whose predictions about climate change and Global Warming have never once come true?
Don't underestimate science teachers, who may be some of the best educators in many school districts. We have a young generation who cut their teeth on Bill Nye and Mythbusters. It would take more than a brochure mailed out to teachers from s sketchy source to change their minds.
I like to envision these conservative "think" tanks as a climber who is on the verge of slipping off the cliff, desperately clawing for rocks, plants even loose pebbles to grab onto. My sense is that, with the possible holdouts of the older generations, the fossil fuel industry and the highly religious, the culture is close to a tipping point when it comes to climate change, and the opinions may even change as rapidly as they have with topics like gay marriage and Obamacare.
I like to envision these conservative "think" tanks as a climber who is on the verge of slipping off the cliff, desperately clawing for rocks, plants even loose pebbles to grab onto. My sense is that, with the possible holdouts of the older generations, the fossil fuel industry and the highly religious, the culture is close to a tipping point when it comes to climate change, and the opinions may even change as rapidly as they have with topics like gay marriage and Obamacare.
15
The Heartland Institute ABSOLUTELY believes in the reality of climate change. Disbelief is not its motive for publishing and distributing disinformation. It partners with ALEC, funded by the Koch brothers, who profit from the fossil fuel industry on too many fronts to enumerate.
The institute may indeed believe that the risk is not as imminent as the majority of reputable climatologists believe, but the majority of the one percent always sees itself as exempt from the realities of economic and social disruption. However, unless they have figured out a way to migrate to Planet B, even they will eventually suffer from climate disruption.
The institute may indeed believe that the risk is not as imminent as the majority of reputable climatologists believe, but the majority of the one percent always sees itself as exempt from the realities of economic and social disruption. However, unless they have figured out a way to migrate to Planet B, even they will eventually suffer from climate disruption.
13
"The institute may indeed believe that the risk is not as imminent as the majority of reputable climatologists believe"
Therein lies the problem - most reputable climate scientists do not believe in the climate Apocalypse. The climate Apocalypse is the minority view - which those who cite the 97% wish to mask.
Therein lies the problem - most reputable climate scientists do not believe in the climate Apocalypse. The climate Apocalypse is the minority view - which those who cite the 97% wish to mask.
Apocalyptic is not my word, it is yours. However, when icebergs are calving, massive amounts of methane are being released from the melting tundra and a good percentage of the east and Alaska coast is regularly flooded seems to meet the definition of imminent.
4
See Alex Epstein's, _Moral Case For Fossil Fuels_, at the Center For Industrial Progress.
the sad fact that science teachers are so vulnerable to this propaganda just yells how poor our teaching staff is .... and what it says about the future of science in our country.
17
You don't know the half of it. I've taught for nearly three decades and have always stated the most unpleasant part of the job are the people I have to work around.
1
Well that "poorness" you mention comes from an unwillingness to make a whole generation of young people focus on the basics of reading comprehension--and by "whole generation" I mean today's teachers themselves!
2
Betsy DeVos will change all that.
Ralphie of CT:
instead of asking naive teachers and students to evaluate data, why not ask them to read papers by actual trained climate scientists who know how to do that? We should respect the conclusions of trained scientists who are experts in the field and know what they are doing. We cannot simply substitute our own "common sense" for their actual knowledge and expertise-contrary to the specious naysayers. It is easy to come up with commonsense arguments that cannot stand up to science: the earth is flat, smoking doesn't damage your health, bacteria don't cause disease (you cannot see them cause disease). This is why we trust trained scientists in numerous aspects of our lives, and why we should trust them when virtually all of them tell us climate change is largely caused by human activity and is causing disasters even as we speak.
instead of asking naive teachers and students to evaluate data, why not ask them to read papers by actual trained climate scientists who know how to do that? We should respect the conclusions of trained scientists who are experts in the field and know what they are doing. We cannot simply substitute our own "common sense" for their actual knowledge and expertise-contrary to the specious naysayers. It is easy to come up with commonsense arguments that cannot stand up to science: the earth is flat, smoking doesn't damage your health, bacteria don't cause disease (you cannot see them cause disease). This is why we trust trained scientists in numerous aspects of our lives, and why we should trust them when virtually all of them tell us climate change is largely caused by human activity and is causing disasters even as we speak.
11
Leonard H -- no issue with them also reading climate science papers.... but learning how to analyze and interpret data seems a legitimate occupation for students studying science.
As for the common sense argument -- what is your point?
As for the common sense argument -- what is your point?
Science is the belief in the ignorance of the experts.
Feynman.
Feynman.
Just another example of how money corrupts.
9
Exactly! Obama spent over $100 Billion on so called climate change during his time as president. No company in existence could compete with that.
"so called climate change"? It isn't a political issue. Alt-facts don't cut it when it comes to science and willful ignorance in the service of ideology isn't rational. Please go back to school and learn about the scientific method and how evidence-based decision making works.
6
Can't wait until all the history teachers get a slim, glossy mailer about how the Holocaust was a myth and the slaves were all happy immigrants.
31
Texas has already experienced something akin to this in its U.S. History texts published by McGraw-Hill in which slaves were referred to as workers in the Civil War section. An African-American student caught it and showed it to his mother who went to school authorities---with results! McGraw-Hill had to issue a correction that could be inserted, print a revised edition and supply the schools with it at no charge. Who's guilty? Texas textbook selection committee may have overlooked this glaring insult but they also wanted textbooks under consideration for state adoption approval lists to minimize American failinga and stress our exceptionalism. Also, they wanted only an abbreviated treatment of Thomas Jefferson, ya know, his separation of church and state foolishness?
6
I wish I could tell you that things like this won't be happening soon!
1
Conservative think tank. Best oxymoron ever. But, give Trump a while, he'll top that. Bigly.
17
I'm looking forward to the Heartland Institute's new chapter to its acclaimed "Bible of New Physics". The book is, "Gravity: The Law Or Just A Good Idea?" Available at distinctive book retailers in the weeks to come.
18
One hopes this trash only hardens the resolve of teachers the propagandists are trying to brainwash. Any teacher gullible enough to buy the lies does not belong in a classroom.
22
The propagandists that promote the climate Apocalypse narrative?
I hope science teachers are better than that... That said, it's a reminder to always be vigilant with my son's education. Luckily I live in New York City, but still, a good reminder....
14
Okay, so mail out a couple of pages that point out where this book has gotten it all wrong.
Save for those that don't want to know, most will be able to figure it out.
Save for those that don't want to know, most will be able to figure it out.
4
Why isn't "disinformation" and "fake news", committed for the purpose of generating financial gains or forestalling losses, considered by society to be nothing other than a garden variety criminal fraud?
9
Because it would boomerang on Leftists.
Well Stated Dr. Stager! I'll be passing this amongst High School Science Teachers.
7
Clever teachers can use this book to refute one by one the deniers claims.
8
Yet another discovered use for the tax deductible monies flowing to "so called" foundations (slush funds) which then give it to like-minded 501(c)(3) non-profits (money laundering operations) for the purpose of political activity. Result: an answer actually, to the rhetorical question "Have you no shame?"
8
The important thing is that we must not tolerate doubt, especially in science.
We should, absolutely, also look to political leaders to strengthen our position and ensure that 'deniers' are excluded and ostracized. Ultimate and permanent silencing must be afforded us as an option, lest unwanted voices sow division and stifle our progress toward the ideal.
Whether it's climate change or any other proven science, there is no room for an attitude of questioning nor subversive thoughts being allowed a voice.
Finally, the question inevitably arises: what should be done about those who continue to present data that could cast doubt on our findings?
We need a Final Solution.
We should, absolutely, also look to political leaders to strengthen our position and ensure that 'deniers' are excluded and ostracized. Ultimate and permanent silencing must be afforded us as an option, lest unwanted voices sow division and stifle our progress toward the ideal.
Whether it's climate change or any other proven science, there is no room for an attitude of questioning nor subversive thoughts being allowed a voice.
Finally, the question inevitably arises: what should be done about those who continue to present data that could cast doubt on our findings?
We need a Final Solution.
3
the important thing is that, no matter how much evidence we have for something, if it is going to make us give up anything, we should question it endlessly, so nothing gets done.
6
Unfortunately, there will never be a final solution. The First Amendment stands, thank goodness, in the way of a final solution done by silencing critics. It is up to those of us who believe in good science to step and correct the public dialog.
CWAndrews: No one is saying stifle dissent. But when oil companies finance the dissent so they can make more money, we should be more skeptical of the "scientists" they pay to dissent. Of course science advances when old problems are approached from new angles, or old assumptions are challenged. But the motivation for challenging should be the advancement of science toward a better understanding of phenomenon, not financial gain. We should not teach nonsense and call it an alternative to teaching science.
1
Besides the change in the climate, there is also ocean acidification, which results when atmospheric CO2 dissolves in the ocean. This is an often-unmetioned aspect of having too much CO2 in the atmosphere, since a change in ocean pH will have a dramatic effect on the survival of organisms in the oceans' ecosystems. So even if climate didn't change from CO2 overload, we would suffer great harm flowing from ocean acidification. Further, the effect of CO2 on climate will increase once the ocean has absorbed all the CO2 that it can. At that point, the rate of increase of atmospheric CO2 concentration will increase, other things remaining constant, and the greenhouse effect from atmospheric CO2 likewise will increase.
6
More CO2 ->more vegetation->less CO2.
Warmer climate->more clouds->more solar energy reflected->cooler climate.
More dissolved CO2 in oceans->more phytoplankton->less CO2 in ocean.
Ocean acidification from CO2->more limestone->less ocean acidification.
Earth is resilient. Almost anything man does can be corrected by a natural system. We would have to do a lot more than we are now to make any real change in the climate. "Other things" never remain constant. The Earth is a very complex system that has natural limiting factors.
"CO2 absorbtion saturation". Look it up. Due to existing levels of CO2, we would have to increase CO2 content two-fold to have any significant impact on global temperatures.
You can use other people's research to form an opinion, but don't simply accept their conclusions. Man is capable of thinking for himself. Whatever conclusion you come to, at least you did the work to get there.
Warmer climate->more clouds->more solar energy reflected->cooler climate.
More dissolved CO2 in oceans->more phytoplankton->less CO2 in ocean.
Ocean acidification from CO2->more limestone->less ocean acidification.
Earth is resilient. Almost anything man does can be corrected by a natural system. We would have to do a lot more than we are now to make any real change in the climate. "Other things" never remain constant. The Earth is a very complex system that has natural limiting factors.
"CO2 absorbtion saturation". Look it up. Due to existing levels of CO2, we would have to increase CO2 content two-fold to have any significant impact on global temperatures.
You can use other people's research to form an opinion, but don't simply accept their conclusions. Man is capable of thinking for himself. Whatever conclusion you come to, at least you did the work to get there.
1
Wisdomlost of TX:
if what you said were true, then atmospheric CO2 would not be rising. but it has risen a lot since the industrial revolution and over the last 30 years. yes, carbon sinks can mitigate carbon increase, but the sink has to be big enough. it is not. the sinks are greatly overflowing. this is well-documented.
you cannot possible "do the work to get there" in every aspect of life. That is why we have division of labor. Otherwise, you would have to develop your own vaccines and other medication, operate on yourself, fix your car, build your house (including electrical wiring and plumbing), determine the properties of every food you consume, etc. Knowledge is built on knowledge. We must rely on others' conclusions.
if what you said were true, then atmospheric CO2 would not be rising. but it has risen a lot since the industrial revolution and over the last 30 years. yes, carbon sinks can mitigate carbon increase, but the sink has to be big enough. it is not. the sinks are greatly overflowing. this is well-documented.
you cannot possible "do the work to get there" in every aspect of life. That is why we have division of labor. Otherwise, you would have to develop your own vaccines and other medication, operate on yourself, fix your car, build your house (including electrical wiring and plumbing), determine the properties of every food you consume, etc. Knowledge is built on knowledge. We must rely on others' conclusions.
2
The 97% came from a paper published by Cook, et. al. http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article You will note that they use the 97% figure as those who study issues concerning Climate Science and, who explicitly or implicitly accept the thesis that at least some climate change is caused by human emissions. They looked at 11,944 abstracts from 1991 to 2011. 66.4% of Climate related papers were thrown out because those papers did not think it important enough that they should address even in passing human caused Global Warming. I would suggest that it is not too surprising, that a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists. But does the reverse of this not follow?
Tellingly, those papers which chose to address, if only in passing, the question of whether some AGW might have caused some global warming needed to have passed the rather low bar, namely that humans emissions have caused some small percent of the total warming. The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that it's devastating. It is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors - who did have that figure - choose not to publish it. Contrary to those who quote this figure, by the researchers own methodology, most skeptics, would also be members of the 97%.
Tellingly, those papers which chose to address, if only in passing, the question of whether some AGW might have caused some global warming needed to have passed the rather low bar, namely that humans emissions have caused some small percent of the total warming. The 97% consensus cannot be said to support the idea that human kind is the primary cause of global warming or that it's devastating. It is true that some in the consensus may believe those contentions to be true, they do not make up 97%. They may even be a minority, even a relatively small minority. The authors - who did have that figure - choose not to publish it. Contrary to those who quote this figure, by the researchers own methodology, most skeptics, would also be members of the 97%.
3
"a scientist who thought AGW was important enough to discuss, would believe that it exists." The opposite seems more likely. If we assume that practically everybody is aware that this is publicly controversial, and that the generally accepted position among scientists leans toward human-caused climate change, we would expect that someone agreeing with the general view would not find it necessary to mention it, if it wasn't central to their paper. But someone who felt that their work raised doubts about the general view would be highly motivated to mention it. In the present context, it is these doubters who would be the most motivated to emphasize that aspect of their work. Theirs is not the default position. This would probably be the seven tenths of a percent mentioned in the study.
You say that those counted by the study as supporting the idea of human-caused climate change, may actually think that humans only cause a very small part of the change. But the authors clearly say, several times, that they are talking about the idea that human causation is very important - responsible for most or all of current change. They say that that is the basis on which they selected and counted the various papers. You give no reason for contradicting the authors about the methodology of their own study.
You say that those counted by the study as supporting the idea of human-caused climate change, may actually think that humans only cause a very small part of the change. But the authors clearly say, several times, that they are talking about the idea that human causation is very important - responsible for most or all of current change. They say that that is the basis on which they selected and counted the various papers. You give no reason for contradicting the authors about the methodology of their own study.
1
M Scott apparently misread a critical portion of the paper, i.e. "Of note is the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW. This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists ‘. . . generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees’ (Oreskes 2007, p 72)". They then further note. "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial
among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts".
I am a working scientist (geology, have published many papers and can attest that most of the papers I have been involved with were about new science, not rehashing ideas that I and co-authors accepted as established. NB: that we accepted established ideas does not mean that these ideas could not be in error, just that we, like most other scientists, use established science to build on.
While 'established science" can be shown to be in error or need modification, these are very rare events, e.g. plate tectonics and the theory of evolution. They are the most exciting thing to occur in science and being responsible such an event is the greatest thing that a scientist can aspire to. Currently there is no such evidence or theory to effect such an occurrence for AGW.
among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics. This is supported by the fact that more than half of the self-rated endorsement papers did not express a position on AGW in their abstracts".
I am a working scientist (geology, have published many papers and can attest that most of the papers I have been involved with were about new science, not rehashing ideas that I and co-authors accepted as established. NB: that we accepted established ideas does not mean that these ideas could not be in error, just that we, like most other scientists, use established science to build on.
While 'established science" can be shown to be in error or need modification, these are very rare events, e.g. plate tectonics and the theory of evolution. They are the most exciting thing to occur in science and being responsible such an event is the greatest thing that a scientist can aspire to. Currently there is no such evidence or theory to effect such an occurrence for AGW.
2
While this is probably true now, we are talking about papers that go back to 1991. So not so widely accepted then.
On the other hand I agree with you. I doubt that the work of Arrhenius will be overturned. No serious student doubts that green house gasses contribute to warming. The question is how much, and that is being continuously revised downward. How catastrophic is one or even two degrees of warming over 100 years. So no Thomas Kuhn moment here, only refinements which looks like they are suggesting that the change will not be catastrophic. If so then the trillions that will be diverted from projects such as serving the needs of the underdeveloped world might be better spent. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion...
On the other hand I agree with you. I doubt that the work of Arrhenius will be overturned. No serious student doubts that green house gasses contribute to warming. The question is how much, and that is being continuously revised downward. How catastrophic is one or even two degrees of warming over 100 years. So no Thomas Kuhn moment here, only refinements which looks like they are suggesting that the change will not be catastrophic. If so then the trillions that will be diverted from projects such as serving the needs of the underdeveloped world might be better spent. http://dailycaller.com/2017/04/25/al-gores-new-group-demands-15-trillion...
The shore here is all mud, where it once was under water, and they say sea level is rising, wrong or well not here and now. We are only to be convinced by what we sense, agree without someone and you've got a movement. In the meantime, there ain't no officer Obie , gonna say: " I was just making sure" cause it cain't be done. Funny how a rum and coke is warm, then it's cold after you put ice cubes in it.
1
The sea level has risen at least 8 inches during the past few decades. And the rise is just getting started. Accept it!
3
The answer is simple. Stop using fossil fuels altogether. It doesn't matter the process or use. Stop using fossil fuels if you agree "global warming" is human caused.
4
While a agree with you for the long run, the question comes up what price are you willing to pay in the short run to stop using fossil fuels bearing in mind that civilization as we know it would collapse without fossil fuels.
1
Note the evasion of the critical difference between catastrophic and mild global warming.
But Leftists have long attacked civilization to bring Christianity down to Earth.
I wonder what benefit the institute gets from spending this money? or who is bankrolling it to obtain some benefit.
8
The Heartland Institute has received money from the energy industry. There have been a number of stories over the years about their funding.
17
"Alternative facts", anyone?
One would hope that well-educated teachers would be able to discern fake from real but in this coming age of the DeVos Department of Education, who knows?
One would hope that well-educated teachers would be able to discern fake from real but in this coming age of the DeVos Department of Education, who knows?
3
Republlicans are focused on dumbing down America, keeping them "barefoot and pregnant." There's a reason trump exclaimed that he loved the poorly educated! That's how he got elected. Noam Chomsky calls them the most dangerous organization in the world. He's right about that.
7
To all global warming deniers I ask one question. What's your number? At what point will the human population on this planet begin to adversely effect earth? 15 billion? 150 billion? I don't need a scientist to know that at some point the human population (and all the cows, chickens, pigs, that come with them) on this planet will harm earth. Why not start to do something about it now? Why not?
8
I constantly see, especially here at The Times, people insisting that one cannot decouple population growth from climate change. And of course, if all humans vanished from the earth, the problem would be solved. The truth is that one shouldn't look at Earth's population in total; some areas are desperate for more population growth, some need to get it under control. I fear that a wild ideology could arise from the Left in response to the Right's denial of climate change. Panic could set in and hectic, precipitate, and unwise policies could follow.
There are people who spend years here in the comment section panic-mongering about the Malthusian doom awaiting us. I have not seen evidence, and I've seen much, that convinces me that total population is necessarily an immediate or near-immediate threat. We should focus on transitioning as effectively and efficiently, which means not strangling markets, to renewable energy. Where population is a problem, yes, we should help assuage it.
I don't think it does much good to grandly state that we need some kind of global solution to the supposed problem of total population numbers. How might this work exactly? Do the people who say this not see how this could be extremely dangerous? Evidently they don't.
There are people who spend years here in the comment section panic-mongering about the Malthusian doom awaiting us. I have not seen evidence, and I've seen much, that convinces me that total population is necessarily an immediate or near-immediate threat. We should focus on transitioning as effectively and efficiently, which means not strangling markets, to renewable energy. Where population is a problem, yes, we should help assuage it.
I don't think it does much good to grandly state that we need some kind of global solution to the supposed problem of total population numbers. How might this work exactly? Do the people who say this not see how this could be extremely dangerous? Evidently they don't.
>I fear that a wild ideology could arise from the Left in response to the Right's denial of climate change. Panic could set in and hectic, precipitate, and unwise policies could follow.
Could?!
Could?!
Nothing new about reactionaries lying. Part of the definition when you realize they refuse to accept progress in knowledge - as they refuse political action to utilize that change.
Nothing new about collaboration from Conservative government or - alas - ignorant voters electing and re-electing pimps for profit and an imaginary past.
Nothing new about collaboration from Conservative government or - alas - ignorant voters electing and re-electing pimps for profit and an imaginary past.
6
The whole climate discussion is run like a social science project: scientists vs. oil-compensated-politician - discuss. That is not good. You have to say: Look up the absorption spectrum of CO2 (infrared, obviously), then you do the Jeans equation (showing that CO2 cannot escape the atmosphere, high school math), what does that mean? Why is there so much CO2 around, how does wood, oil, etc get desintegrated when burned. When was earth under water last time, what happened?... Obvoiusly, there are things scientists will disagree over but if you avoid he-said she-said you can escape it.
3
Sounds like maybe you have an aversion to social science? On this topic, it SHOULD be taught as both a science and social science topic. Anything less is cheating the students. This is hard science, it's also just about as social science as it gets. You may have a problem if you cannot see both threads running concurrently. The topic will mean little to most fourth graders unless it is somewhat multidisciplinary.
1
Over 45 years ago when I was in high school I had three extraordinary teachers. My social studies teacher, my humanities teacher and my art teacher who each in their own way made it clear that their priority was developing our critical thinking skills while learning the facts of their subjects. As I went through life it became clearer and clearer what a gift they gave to me. We should be teaching our students how to think, not trying to jam personal agendas down their throats. If you can think for yourself you can do anything.
11
Despite the survey, most certified science teachers will either throw this thing away, or use it illustrate propaganda to their classes. Most teachers are too educated to believe crap.
5
As many have stated, science has no political party, and by rigorous vetting of ideas aims to make what it presents as vetted and sound as possible.
Which makes attacks on any scientific ideas so confounding, and curiously always (I use absolutes since the election) coming from the hardened right.
Time and again you see attacks from dogmatic elites on the pursuit of an objective truth and the acquisition of knowledge as threatening to their agenda.
Galileo knew it.
They're feeling resurgent now.
Which makes attacks on any scientific ideas so confounding, and curiously always (I use absolutes since the election) coming from the hardened right.
Time and again you see attacks from dogmatic elites on the pursuit of an objective truth and the acquisition of knowledge as threatening to their agenda.
Galileo knew it.
They're feeling resurgent now.
8
> science has no political party
Science has the political party of man's independent mind, capitalism.
Science has the political party of man's independent mind, capitalism.
Who these stupid teachers are? They are not skeptic really. They have agenda. Right wing propaganda is winning because there are some billionaires like Koch brothers who are spending millions of dollars and there are right wing media to propagate misinformation. It is sad.
10
Scientific evidence aside, why wouldn't you think that pumping "stuff" into the atmosphere for the past 150 yrs. is having an effect on said atmosphere? From the time of Dickens, rainy London's streets ran black with soot from coal use. Do deniers think these many poisonous particulates just blow away to some other universe? Well they don't. They accumulate right here, all the denying isn't going to change that fact, and it's madness to pretend otherwise.
11
Confusion here. That black soot got washed into the ocean and sank to the bottom as sediment. It has nothing to do with greenhouse gases that warm the atmosphere.
1
I have wondered lately what they are teaching in our high schools. Too many people are not listening to climate scientists. Are kids learning about civics? Are high schools teaching controversial issues? Fact from fiction? Lies from truth? How can our democracy continue for the good of us all if students coming out of our schools do not understand what is happening in our world? They will continue their ignorance believing what they want. What happened to reason? Donald Trump is the result.
16
It's always funny to hear about people digging their own graves by spreading lies. Lies nicely molded in scientific "stories".
Such moves bring consistently Goebbels to my mind, the biggest faker of all times. He sold lies as truth, efficiently!
Such moves bring consistently Goebbels to my mind, the biggest faker of all times. He sold lies as truth, efficiently!
5
Note clearly the Leftist attack on Rightist, but not Leftist, tyranny. They are warning us.
The Heartland Institute defended the cigarette industry, claiming lack of evidence that cigarettes caused cancer. They're industry shills using the same tactics today. The primary strategy is to spread doubt and confuse the issue.
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantl...
http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/05/12464/heartland-institute-reluctantl...
1
I've seen the burned-out-trees in the Adirondacks which suffered from acid-rain that did it's damage by winds blowing east from midwest industrial factories.
I've seen Adirondacks lifeless lakes which allow you to see down thru clear waters --- 12 to 15 feet to the bottom.
"Wow," excited children exclaim, "I can see all the way to the bottom," not realizing the lake has no organic life.
Con-man Trump has enabled the dumb to continue to drill a hole in the bottom of our life-boat.
Remove him and his enablers from the thrones of power and hypocrisy. The concentration of wealth and power is destroying our planet.
I've seen Adirondacks lifeless lakes which allow you to see down thru clear waters --- 12 to 15 feet to the bottom.
"Wow," excited children exclaim, "I can see all the way to the bottom," not realizing the lake has no organic life.
Con-man Trump has enabled the dumb to continue to drill a hole in the bottom of our life-boat.
Remove him and his enablers from the thrones of power and hypocrisy. The concentration of wealth and power is destroying our planet.
5
How it is that America has become so stupid?
I don't have a coherent thought about this, much less a theory, much less an answer, but I do know that this is what we should be talking about.
We should be treating human-induced global climate change as a fact (on par with the fact that human body temperature is generally 98.6 degrees F.) and be asking how it is that we're still arguing about it. It's been in the scientific literature since before the turn of the 20th (not the 21st) century -- and that's well over a hundred years.
Why are we Americans having so much trouble "getting" it?
I don't have a coherent thought about this, much less a theory, much less an answer, but I do know that this is what we should be talking about.
We should be treating human-induced global climate change as a fact (on par with the fact that human body temperature is generally 98.6 degrees F.) and be asking how it is that we're still arguing about it. It's been in the scientific literature since before the turn of the 20th (not the 21st) century -- and that's well over a hundred years.
Why are we Americans having so much trouble "getting" it?
2
A clever teacher could use this book as a guide to teaching the young critical thinking. Students could be assigned sections of the book to research and determine for themselves what the facts are. That would be a useful education.
3
Here is my kind proposal to someone who is more tech savvy than me.
The pdf of the book is available online.
Create a website where people can post one page at a time from this page with references to why they are wrong.
I know it is a fool's errand since they do not want a dialog. But maybe it would be useful.
The pdf of the book is available online.
Create a website where people can post one page at a time from this page with references to why they are wrong.
I know it is a fool's errand since they do not want a dialog. But maybe it would be useful.
3
Can't wait to get my copy so I can rip it apart! I am wondering if Heartland is also promoting Flat Earth...
We can look at these types of "theories" and ideas as opportunities to teach critical thinking. Teenagers love to prove people wrong, now I can give them the chance to prove wrong the right group of people.
By having students examine data and evidence, they can create fliers, websites, and other publications that demonstrate that they understand climate chemistry and thermodynamics better than the writers of this drivel.
We can look at these types of "theories" and ideas as opportunities to teach critical thinking. Teenagers love to prove people wrong, now I can give them the chance to prove wrong the right group of people.
By having students examine data and evidence, they can create fliers, websites, and other publications that demonstrate that they understand climate chemistry and thermodynamics better than the writers of this drivel.
2
It's important to distinguish science from religion.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Religion is an ancient method for coping with fear of death and the unknown, and grief at loss. It helps us to hope our efforts to survive and reproduce will succeed. It helps bind us into societies and act collectively. It relies on faith, or belief informed not by evidence but by hope, to overcome private doubt and promote social cohesion. That is, it encourages us to fool ourselves, for our own and mutual benefit.
"The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" -R. Feynman.
Science arose late in history, as a better way to understand and predict physical phenomena than divination with a sheep's liver. It has two foundations: "empiricism", or careful observation, accounting for all possible ways to be mistaken, and documenting them so they can be repeated; and "inter-subjective verification", whereby a scientist's findings are scrutinized by peers, other trained and disciplined scientists who are familiar with the subject and who won't let each other be fooled. All humanity has benefited.
While we all want to hope otherwise, anthropogenic global warming is verified by 200 years of painstaking empiricism and unsparing inter-subjective verification, carried out by people who don't want to let hope fool them. Those who deny AGW are content to be fooled.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." -Hebrews 11:1 (KJV)
Religion is an ancient method for coping with fear of death and the unknown, and grief at loss. It helps us to hope our efforts to survive and reproduce will succeed. It helps bind us into societies and act collectively. It relies on faith, or belief informed not by evidence but by hope, to overcome private doubt and promote social cohesion. That is, it encourages us to fool ourselves, for our own and mutual benefit.
"The first principle [of science] is that you must not fool yourself - and you are the easiest person to fool" -R. Feynman.
Science arose late in history, as a better way to understand and predict physical phenomena than divination with a sheep's liver. It has two foundations: "empiricism", or careful observation, accounting for all possible ways to be mistaken, and documenting them so they can be repeated; and "inter-subjective verification", whereby a scientist's findings are scrutinized by peers, other trained and disciplined scientists who are familiar with the subject and who won't let each other be fooled. All humanity has benefited.
While we all want to hope otherwise, anthropogenic global warming is verified by 200 years of painstaking empiricism and unsparing inter-subjective verification, carried out by people who don't want to let hope fool them. Those who deny AGW are content to be fooled.
4
If teachers are teaching climate science in grades 1-12 I hope it is something along the lines of:
1) climate has always changed
2) some believe we are experiencing unusually rapid warming now
3) some believe humans are part of the cause
4) some outcomes of warming may be negative
5) but some may be positive
6) science requires hypotheses must be falsifiable -- but in the case of CC, the long term nature of many projections aren't immediately falsifiable
7) Climate scientists use computer models to project what will happen to the world, but models aren't magic and are only as good as the assumptions used in the models.
8) There is a difference between science and public policy.
Further -- I would hope the teachers present real temp data to students and ask them to interpret the data -- such as the decadal temp record for the contiguous US provided by NOAA from 1900 to 1999:
overall avg = 52.02 F
1900s -- 51.57
1910s -- 51.38
1920s -- 51.85
1930s - 52.64
1940s - 52.05
1950s - 52.16
1960s - 51.69
1970s - 51.66
1980s - 52.31
1990s - 52.82
I would ask teachers to point out that temps for the 1990s are 1.25 degrees F higher than the 1900s. But, I'd also point out that the 1930s was the 2nd warmest decade and that the 1970s isn't different from the 1900s. I would ask students if they see a warming trend --or just variation around a mean?
1) climate has always changed
2) some believe we are experiencing unusually rapid warming now
3) some believe humans are part of the cause
4) some outcomes of warming may be negative
5) but some may be positive
6) science requires hypotheses must be falsifiable -- but in the case of CC, the long term nature of many projections aren't immediately falsifiable
7) Climate scientists use computer models to project what will happen to the world, but models aren't magic and are only as good as the assumptions used in the models.
8) There is a difference between science and public policy.
Further -- I would hope the teachers present real temp data to students and ask them to interpret the data -- such as the decadal temp record for the contiguous US provided by NOAA from 1900 to 1999:
overall avg = 52.02 F
1900s -- 51.57
1910s -- 51.38
1920s -- 51.85
1930s - 52.64
1940s - 52.05
1950s - 52.16
1960s - 51.69
1970s - 51.66
1980s - 52.31
1990s - 52.82
I would ask teachers to point out that temps for the 1990s are 1.25 degrees F higher than the 1900s. But, I'd also point out that the 1930s was the 2nd warmest decade and that the 1970s isn't different from the 1900s. I would ask students if they see a warming trend --or just variation around a mean?
3
Ralphie
Some people argue that people who argue as if saying "some people" is any kind of support have no business making an argument.
Lots of people people say that. Many very important people, the best people, have told me that.
Some people argue that people who argue as if saying "some people" is any kind of support have no business making an argument.
Lots of people people say that. Many very important people, the best people, have told me that.
1
Here is Bill Nye, ("the science guy") on CNN explaining how CO2 is vastly accelerating at non natural pace, and how the heat is going into the oceans. As opposed solely to air.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoxZPK1ArY
South Beach, Fl is not right now spending huge amounts of money to raise the streets one by one because of what Bill Nye says. They are doing it (right now) because streets and parking lots that were dry a decade ago are now daily inundated with tidal salt water. There are now street signs warning of daily salt water inundation in parking lots. Clue?
Look up how many glaciers in Glacier National Park there were in the early 1900's, in 2000, today, and the expected number in twenty years... (0).
Core samples, deep ice samples from the Arctic, ancient tree rings, all coincide in describing the radical change occurring now.
Anyone living on a low lying coast has to be in severe denial to not accept the information (in the form of water, not print) right in front of them that things are changing and fast. Away from the coasts, the kind of economic chaos that comes from acceptance of the tipping point, coming soon, will negatively effect almost everyone.
So no, this is not just variation around a mean. It is one directional and, in a positive feedback loop, accelerating viciously. And the grown ups at the top, who are supposed to be moderating it to the best of our ability for the common good, are doing exactly the opposite.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WAoxZPK1ArY
South Beach, Fl is not right now spending huge amounts of money to raise the streets one by one because of what Bill Nye says. They are doing it (right now) because streets and parking lots that were dry a decade ago are now daily inundated with tidal salt water. There are now street signs warning of daily salt water inundation in parking lots. Clue?
Look up how many glaciers in Glacier National Park there were in the early 1900's, in 2000, today, and the expected number in twenty years... (0).
Core samples, deep ice samples from the Arctic, ancient tree rings, all coincide in describing the radical change occurring now.
Anyone living on a low lying coast has to be in severe denial to not accept the information (in the form of water, not print) right in front of them that things are changing and fast. Away from the coasts, the kind of economic chaos that comes from acceptance of the tipping point, coming soon, will negatively effect almost everyone.
So no, this is not just variation around a mean. It is one directional and, in a positive feedback loop, accelerating viciously. And the grown ups at the top, who are supposed to be moderating it to the best of our ability for the common good, are doing exactly the opposite.
5
Modelling complex non-linear and chaotic systems is inherently difficult. Is raising reasonable scientific and mathematical questions about the models "sowing doubt". Normal scientific protocol involves identifying difficulties and weaknesses in technology, modes of corroboration and analysis of predictability. Non-linear systems are inherently hard to model. Is it "criminal" to point this out?
God Forbid that anyone should raise a legitimate scientific question on matters of climate and weather.
God Forbid that anyone should raise a legitimate scientific question on matters of climate and weather.
2
Yes, global climate is a complex system to model but the physics of the greenhouse effect, the driver of warming, has been understood for 200 years or so. The historical effect is very clear. The ability to precisely model the future is improving. What is truly frightening is that these models may be underestimating the impact. Muddying the waters only helps forestall interventions which will not only mitigate warming but should also reduce other pollutants and stimulate innovation.
4
Or possibly they are overestimating the effect of CO2. There are potential negative feed backs which can alter the albdedo and lessen the greenhouse effect. Among these possible negative feedbacks is cloud formation which at this time is not well understood.
Don't get me wrong. I think we have to take a cautious and reasonable approach and work steadily at eliminating combustion modes of generating power. However panic mongering and warning us we are going to turn into Venus by January 1, 2100 is not helpful.
Don't get me wrong. I think we have to take a cautious and reasonable approach and work steadily at eliminating combustion modes of generating power. However panic mongering and warning us we are going to turn into Venus by January 1, 2100 is not helpful.
1
That we have educators that are vulnerable to this hooey is the real cause for concern. The agenda that these peddlers of lies and bad science has nothing to do with reality. I would hope that school administrators would be on board to make sure that this detritus does not make it's way to the classroom. The standards that would take care of this in our public school institutions, particularly at the state level should be high enough to maintain integrity in what children are taught. If appears based on the current situation with a large percentage of the population buying into all forms of nonsense being peddled out there that a large percentage of people are not being taught any level of critical thinking. Who are we? At what point does this drive us to authoritarian control? Our government is being used in ways that totally go against a healthy democracy that our fr fathers worked so hard to define and make sure that it would succeed. At what point do we stop this insanity?
4
Why bring this up at all until the college level? Same with evolution. Contrary to allegations by liberal scientists, it is possible to teach most scientific topics to children through high school without stepping into controversial territory. Teaching information that offends many parents just causes problems for students. I attended school in the 50's and 60's and took several challenging science classes without ever being presented with any issues that would have brought on the wrath of local churches and parents.
2
Because when you teach science you teach cause and effect, you teach observation of the world around you and in controlled experiments. You teach the great findings that have changed our world, and which other scientists built their work from. You teach how to test hypotheses. You don't just memorize periodic tables, you understand what those elements can do; how they interact. All of which means you teach evolution and ecology, and that includes climate change. If we don't teach these things before college, we will surely become the dumbest nation on earth. If we don't teach these things before college, very few would ever enroll as a science major. Then, in addition to killing the planet, we will have reduced the very next generation of kids to passive spectators of the wrong we have done.
2
There's a special place reserved for Heartland Institute climate change deceivers where it will be a lot hotter than the future earth that awaits our progeny if Heartland succeeds. They will be sharing the space with their former colleagues who used the same tactics to convince consumers that cigarette smoking does not cause cancer. Should be one Helluva Heartland party!
3
This could be a great teaching moment in critical thinking skills and how to differentiate credible science based on peer review of observable and measurable phenomona from propaganda driven by interests that stand to profit from a particular viewpoint. How can we help teachers do this?
5
We shouldn't be surprised at this. When Britain's Royal Society was founded in 1660, science was an intellectual pursuit for rich men in a pastoral society. It was only with the industrial age men needed machines to make money, and with the machines came mechanics, engineers, applied science and ultimately more resources for pure science as well.
However, America now has a service economy. Instead of machines making things to sell, we have systems to connect providers with customers. The owners of these systems collect the economic rents that once went to factory owners. The old-time factory worker could see the gap between what he produced and what he was paid, but the flow of money from Uber drivers to the Uber shareholders is hard to follow, especially since the company itself loses money.
Instead of industrial engineers, we now have pollsters and strategists. And instead of physical science, we now have emotional science: psychology, identity studies and so on.
Even war, that ultimate test of a nation's strength, has shifted from a contest of building things to a contest of service disruption, through spying, hacking, and propaganda.
We don't have a complete service economy, and our citizens have not yet regressed to the level of seventeenth century English yokels. But those of us who value scientific enquiry should not ignore the change that has taken place around us.
However, America now has a service economy. Instead of machines making things to sell, we have systems to connect providers with customers. The owners of these systems collect the economic rents that once went to factory owners. The old-time factory worker could see the gap between what he produced and what he was paid, but the flow of money from Uber drivers to the Uber shareholders is hard to follow, especially since the company itself loses money.
Instead of industrial engineers, we now have pollsters and strategists. And instead of physical science, we now have emotional science: psychology, identity studies and so on.
Even war, that ultimate test of a nation's strength, has shifted from a contest of building things to a contest of service disruption, through spying, hacking, and propaganda.
We don't have a complete service economy, and our citizens have not yet regressed to the level of seventeenth century English yokels. But those of us who value scientific enquiry should not ignore the change that has taken place around us.
6
As a high school science teacher, I look forward to receiving my copy of this book, along with screeds attacking majority positions on whether the Earth is flat or not and of course, whether or not the Sun revolves around the fixed Earth or not. It is my responsibility to teach the controversy, I am told, so if even one wacko -- ahh, I mean, "citizen" -- holds some view, then by golly I have to teach it. Excuse me while I go buy some jumbo rolls of tinfoil for my kids to make hats out of.
6
The return to the caverns, the massive brutalization, the destructiveism of the scientific truths by barbaros AmAtilas? . How many more barbarities are we willing to accept or simply ignore? And today these anecdotes pseudo intellectuals are introduced through the window of our schools with pamphlets books whose content tries to put in the minds of our children lies as large as basilicas. Yes, to tell them that global warming is a farce. They just want to convince them that the cigarette is healthy and necessary. Or maybe when they finish school they will find the best jobs on the planet in the uncontrolled and encouraged coal mines. Yes, because that of the black lung and the death announced is a product of the inflamed imagination of the liberals and the enemies of the country. My God, the most powerful country in the world in the hands of a strange being and a conflicted and dubiously cultivated and well-meaning group of advisors.
The most appalling part of the story is down in the middle, where it turns out that a year ago, something like 30% of science teachers were teaching climate change as "probably due to natural causes." That's a huge number of students being misinformed - when they encounter accurate information, they will have to balance it with what they learned in school.
Imagine how much other false information is being taught, not just in science but in history and any other area where there is room for error. I hope they are at least getting algebra and geometry right.
Imagine how much other false information is being taught, not just in science but in history and any other area where there is room for error. I hope they are at least getting algebra and geometry right.
3
'In a recent letter to his members, David L. Evans, executive director of the National Science Teachers Association [...] called the institute’s mass mailing of the book an “unprecedented attack” on science education.'
What did he call the recent spectacle of a giant Easter Bunny mascot standing behind the POTUS45 as the US celebrated a big day in Christian mythology?
Truth is whatever you say it is unless hard empiricism is rigorously applied, and then only until that proof fails to be duplicated. That standard is too difficult for a cultural meme, clearly. Can anyone really imagine printing, "In Doubt We Trust" on their money?
The challenge for the scientifically literate is to build the Mother Of All Science Bunny Mascots. Over estimating your audience is a denial of the obvious.
What did he call the recent spectacle of a giant Easter Bunny mascot standing behind the POTUS45 as the US celebrated a big day in Christian mythology?
Truth is whatever you say it is unless hard empiricism is rigorously applied, and then only until that proof fails to be duplicated. That standard is too difficult for a cultural meme, clearly. Can anyone really imagine printing, "In Doubt We Trust" on their money?
The challenge for the scientifically literate is to build the Mother Of All Science Bunny Mascots. Over estimating your audience is a denial of the obvious.
1
It's time to stop sugar coating what these organizations are and what the consequences of their actions will be. They are destroying our children's futures, they are changing the planet for the worst, may be guilty of crimes against humanity.
5
If we just deal from the premise that we need to cut our carbon output rather than taking the opposite approach we would find that it is better to be safe than sorry. If the overwhelming majority of scientists are correct than our action now would ensure the survival of the planet in the future. It's that simple.
1
While it is unlikely that accredited science teachers would take seriously creationist nonsense, we should not forget who is now secretary of education. Secretary DeVos's background is deeply entrenched in Calivinist-based belief and shows little evidence of scientific awareness. How influential she may be is yet to be seen.
1
A little something that I picked up recently from the Era of the Enlightenment.
The author wasn't to be satisfied until all of the kings and queens had been strangled with the intestines of the priests.
I guess kings and queens aren't the only ones worthy of this most excellent distinction.
The author wasn't to be satisfied until all of the kings and queens had been strangled with the intestines of the priests.
I guess kings and queens aren't the only ones worthy of this most excellent distinction.
1
Of course humans have an effect on our planet. Yes we need to minimize and mitigate our negative impacts. Let's do this sensibly with non-partisan assessment and planning, using a phased approach that supports sustainable progress toward realistic goals without destroying economies, and avoids the crooked, ill-advised favoritism that has been a hallmark of national programs to date -- and hasn't done much good either.
1
The Heartland Institute is a 501(c)(3) organization. Taxpayers like me are forced to support them by paying higher income taxes to cover the tax benefits given to Heartland and the lower taxes of those who make tax deductible contributions to these organization.
When will we come to our senses and get rid of 501(c)(3) tax benefits. God and science existed and thrived long before the Internal Revenue Code. We did not need a 501(c)(3) organization to invent the wheel or build the Sistine Chapel.
When will we come to our senses and get rid of 501(c)(3) tax benefits. God and science existed and thrived long before the Internal Revenue Code. We did not need a 501(c)(3) organization to invent the wheel or build the Sistine Chapel.
5
Well, one way to get your point across is to pay for the election of sycophants to Congress. But that's expensive, and the smart money is on the long term benefits of an anti-intellectual superstitious and paranoid population taught for-profit baloney and rote beliefs.
1
People should not do too much outrage at this point, here's why: Starting in 1980 Reagan began lying to the entire country about who we are, who we were destined to be, what America can reasonably look like. After the initial strides forward in the environmental movement (the EPA was established, etc.) we simply STOPPED in the 1980s. We were too immature to accept a naval engineer's vision of society (Carter) and many of us bought into Reagan's fantasy world of an endless 1950s type of country where we just used whatever we wanted. in fact, "Ronnie" was immature on almost all fronts. Anybody remember his "evangelical" Secretary Of The Interior, James Watt?
This crisis could have been lessened if we had acted then, but no, it was "Morning In America."
If some of the teachers are now finding themselves lying to the kids, maybe ask yourselves why? What were you thinking and doing thirty years ago about this problem? Yes, we have to a great degree abandoned the young in this country. But it started decades ago.
This crisis could have been lessened if we had acted then, but no, it was "Morning In America."
If some of the teachers are now finding themselves lying to the kids, maybe ask yourselves why? What were you thinking and doing thirty years ago about this problem? Yes, we have to a great degree abandoned the young in this country. But it started decades ago.
3
This reminds me of "teaching material" distributed by the Exxon Corporation in the early 1990s to many elementary school teachers downplaying the afermath of the 198s Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska. Lots of pictures of healthy wildlife and beautiful wilderness and none had any oil in it.
6
Climate change may become a fight carried out by the far right to the level of ridiculousness -- like the fight against the theory of evolution. They will lose eventually, but the need to continue to educate the public with compelling arguments persists -- especially at times when the White House sells ignorance as a virtue.
6
I have some data that shows conclusively that the Earth is the center of the universe and both the sun and moon orbit it (as well every other celestial body). Please show me the courtesy of "balance" and allow schools to use my data. After all, it is only fair that all scientific "opinions" be treated equally.
6
I remember the 2003 heatwave in Europe that killed 15,000, mostly elderly. What will it take for people to wake up? I expect in the next few decades there will eventually be a heatwave in the US, the electrical grid will collapse under the strain, and the death toll may be too much to imagine.
1
The problem with the 97% figure can be illustrated by this analogy:
97% of all Senators and House of Representative members agree that Americans should pay taxes. While literally true, there is a wide variance of opinion within that 97% - the same is true abut scientists. While the vast majority acknowledge that climate change is occurring the "progressive" narrative of the climate Apocalypse is a minority view.
97% of all Senators and House of Representative members agree that Americans should pay taxes. While literally true, there is a wide variance of opinion within that 97% - the same is true abut scientists. While the vast majority acknowledge that climate change is occurring the "progressive" narrative of the climate Apocalypse is a minority view.
How many people have to die before it's an apocalypse? How acid must the ocean become? How much permafrost has to melt? And who surveyed scientists views on the apocalypse?
3
The "Heartland" disinformation machine, the Koch's and Exxon and other companies that fund it, (and other Orwellian propaganda machines like AFP), t-rump, the Saudis and their subsidiary Fox, all know that human caused climate change AKA flooding of the coasts, is REAL. Exxon did the science themselves in 1977.
They are purposely keeping the lie going, just as they did, and do with smoking, which the vast majority of non mentally disabled individuals, even smokers, would agree f-ing kils you.
They are evil, greedy liars, plain and simple.
That any, especially science teachers, could so lack a basic conceptual foundation as to be swayed even for a second by them is frightening.
They are purposely keeping the lie going, just as they did, and do with smoking, which the vast majority of non mentally disabled individuals, even smokers, would agree f-ing kils you.
They are evil, greedy liars, plain and simple.
That any, especially science teachers, could so lack a basic conceptual foundation as to be swayed even for a second by them is frightening.
1
One can't help but be impressed at how well financed and determined is this anti science brigade. Yet one can see the source of the animus: global warming can only be confronted by a world wide, internationally cooperative approach. It's a job that free enterprise can't manage. All this gives the right the horrors. And, of course, to even slow down efforts to control pollution must easily be worth millions of dollars a month to the fossil fuel people. Who wouldn't put a few million into this insidious sort of propaganda? Moral people, that's who wouldn't
3
Have then tell this to the kids:
Many scientists are now predicting that within the next 150 years, there will be massive human suffering due an acceleration of temperature rise by way of a methane hydrate feedback loop in the Arctic leading to human extinction.
Massive methane reserves below the Arctic Ocean floor and Arctic land areas represent around 100 times the amount required to cause another Permian like major extinction event. These large quantities of Methane Hydrates are now trapped in a frozen state. As temperatures rise from our CO2 emissions, darkened Arctic land mass and oceans there are being exposed to the sun. As temperatures rise beyond the hydrate freezing point, methane is released. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, for the first 20 years 84 times more potent. The feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F degrees) increase. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. During the Permian extinction; after 6 C was reached, the ocean surface waters at their extreme eventually reached more than 40 degrees Celsius. (104 degrees Fahrenheit)
That led to near total planetary life extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Many scientists are now predicting that within the next 150 years, there will be massive human suffering due an acceleration of temperature rise by way of a methane hydrate feedback loop in the Arctic leading to human extinction.
Massive methane reserves below the Arctic Ocean floor and Arctic land areas represent around 100 times the amount required to cause another Permian like major extinction event. These large quantities of Methane Hydrates are now trapped in a frozen state. As temperatures rise from our CO2 emissions, darkened Arctic land mass and oceans there are being exposed to the sun. As temperatures rise beyond the hydrate freezing point, methane is released. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, for the first 20 years 84 times more potent. The feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F degrees) increase. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. During the Permian extinction; after 6 C was reached, the ocean surface waters at their extreme eventually reached more than 40 degrees Celsius. (104 degrees Fahrenheit)
That led to near total planetary life extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
It is unfortunate many people are unwilling to study recent science, scientific evidence and origins which allow for alternative conclusions regarding old earth theology and CO2 impact on climate change. Be careful - the truth always wins out in the end.
1
That man-made climate change is real leaves no doubt, if empiric evidence, and honesty in its reporting,are considered (as they must). Why is the Heartland Institute embarked in lying about the facts? Who pays them to deny reality? Their false prophets must be denounced, exposed and banned from the scientific community; a closed mind in science is, nowadays, inconceivable. We are living climate changes already, with the increased frequency and severity of droughts, floods, fires, diseases, etc. But then again, there is no worse blind than the one who refuses to see. But please, do not let these charlatans contaminate our educational system, sh*t stirrers in our midst.
1
The executive order to review education programs is exactly why this is being done. King Trump wants DeVos to have "local" governments to chose what to teach at their schools and what tests they should pass to continue to the next grade. This is a direct derailment of public schools and to promoting wild ideas that have no scientific evidence. Our young will not be able to compete in a global market if they are brain washed to believe in ridiculous ideas. The world will be leading us by the hand since our zombie like state will be unable to cope with the world's problems.
>multiple surveys of the scientific literature show that well over 90 percent of published climate scientists have concluded that recent global warming is both real and mostly the result of human activity.
The debate is on catastrophic global warming, not the ongoing, beneficial, mild global warming. Fossil fuels are profoundly beneficial to man. Any destructive side effects are relatively small and can be stopped or tolerated with the tech and prosperity from fossil fuels. Mainstream scientists are aiding the explicit anti-humanism of environmentalists. Sustain man. Exploit nature.
The debate is on catastrophic global warming, not the ongoing, beneficial, mild global warming. Fossil fuels are profoundly beneficial to man. Any destructive side effects are relatively small and can be stopped or tolerated with the tech and prosperity from fossil fuels. Mainstream scientists are aiding the explicit anti-humanism of environmentalists. Sustain man. Exploit nature.
1
"The debate is on catastrophic global warming" No, it's not. The mechanism of anthropogenic global warming leads naturally to catastrophe. This train is going over the edge of the canyon. Are you really going to advocate doing nothing about it because the exact location of that edge is difficult to pinpoint? As others here have mentioned, if such an attitude worked in general, none of us would be wearing seatbelts.
3
> The mechanism of anthropogenic global warming leads naturally to catastrophe.
The 97% scientific consensus on this is Leftist propaganda.
The 97% scientific consensus on this is Leftist propaganda.
1
Wrong. Koch disinformation.
2
"The earth was not given to us by our parents, it was loaned to us by our children." Kenyan Proverb
Climate change is proven fact. CO2 is not allowing enough heat to escape back into space. Volcanoes amount to less then 2% of CO2 emissions. Man is emitting more and more. Those are facts.
Continuing to emit more greenhouse gases seems economically beneficial in the short-run, but in the long-run, like in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years it will cost many trillions of dollars (and health and more). Our forefathers sacrificed much for us, shouldn't we sacrifice a little now for the next generation?
Climate change is proven fact. CO2 is not allowing enough heat to escape back into space. Volcanoes amount to less then 2% of CO2 emissions. Man is emitting more and more. Those are facts.
Continuing to emit more greenhouse gases seems economically beneficial in the short-run, but in the long-run, like in 10 years, 20 years, 50 years, 100 years it will cost many trillions of dollars (and health and more). Our forefathers sacrificed much for us, shouldn't we sacrifice a little now for the next generation?
5
> "The earth was not given to us by our parents, it was loaned to us by our children." Kenyan Proverb
Non-Westerners remain dirt-poor until the embrace life instead of sacrifice.
Non-Westerners remain dirt-poor until the embrace life instead of sacrifice.
I'd recommend the documentary "Merchants of Doubt," or the book of the same title that it's based on. It does an excellent job of unmasking the "Wizards of Oz" behind the curtain of denial. It also does a very good job of explaining the methodology of creating doubt and breaking that down in popular terms for those of us who do not have a good background in science.
And just to add to that last sentence I wrote, I really think the people who blame "the left" for being arrogant and condescending about science and climate change, etc., are not just wrong, but are themselves arrogant and condescending in thinking that we can't understand complex issues. And I use "we" very personally. Without going into a lot of detail, I have a high school diploma, that's it. But I can read and analyze. The problem isn't that we unwashed masses are being patronized. The problem is that there are actual elites (yes, Donald Trump supporters, oil companies are "elites") that are funding climate change denial on a very large scale. Those elites combine with a section of people in this country who are adverse to change for a number of reasons, too varied to go into here, but suffice it to say what this admixture produces is a perverse form of vengeful self-defense among many people.
And just to add to that last sentence I wrote, I really think the people who blame "the left" for being arrogant and condescending about science and climate change, etc., are not just wrong, but are themselves arrogant and condescending in thinking that we can't understand complex issues. And I use "we" very personally. Without going into a lot of detail, I have a high school diploma, that's it. But I can read and analyze. The problem isn't that we unwashed masses are being patronized. The problem is that there are actual elites (yes, Donald Trump supporters, oil companies are "elites") that are funding climate change denial on a very large scale. Those elites combine with a section of people in this country who are adverse to change for a number of reasons, too varied to go into here, but suffice it to say what this admixture produces is a perverse form of vengeful self-defense among many people.
5
Just out: The High Court in the UK's ruled against the government delaying the publication of Clean Air plan for after the General Election in June, Air pollution caused by diesel has been linked to 40K pre-mature deaths/year in the UK, increase in cancer & heart disease risk as well as GBP 20 bn in healthcare costs due to complications/year.
In this example, the legal case was built upon scientific measurements of the impact of fossil fuel combustion on air pollution, health and related costs to society. Maybe a similar legal case can be built on the costs incurred by climate change denial & this pervasive effort of its proponents to get it taught in schools.
In this example, the legal case was built upon scientific measurements of the impact of fossil fuel combustion on air pollution, health and related costs to society. Maybe a similar legal case can be built on the costs incurred by climate change denial & this pervasive effort of its proponents to get it taught in schools.
4
Figures that in the UK, where education and intellect still matter, they'd be on top of this. Being an American these days is cause for embarrassment.
4
When the Industrial Revolution started in Britain, people celebrated pollution as a sign of increasing wealth that benefited man. Of course, that was in the pro-reason, pro-man Enlightenment. Now we have modernist-nihilism.
As a geologist and archaeologist, and a retired faculty at UC, Berkeley for 23 years (just being honest here), let's take this one quote and dissect it: "But if only a small percentage of teachers use it as intended, they could still mislead tens of thousands of students with it year after year." This could be calculated exponentially. One high school evangelical teacher, yes some teach biology and "science", can teach let's say 50 students a semester, a conservative number. Over 30 years that's 5000 student's told that climate change is a hoax, or is naturally not anthropogenically caused. It's probably a much higher number, but I digress. Many of these high school students, particularly in red states do not go to college, and continue with the myth that all these terrible storms, the melted ice caps, and disappearance of Micronesia and other island polities, even coastal cities is just the way god intended.
And we Democrats wonder how Trump Nation voted for this clown, and continue to support him. We are all guilty of killing K-12, and the consequences could destroy our Democracy - if the climate doesn't first.
And we Democrats wonder how Trump Nation voted for this clown, and continue to support him. We are all guilty of killing K-12, and the consequences could destroy our Democracy - if the climate doesn't first.
11
SS: "This could be calculated exponentially."
"This" is a slippery slope fallacy coming from a self-proclaimed scientist:
1. Not all students become teachers.
2. Not all students are persuaded or remain persuaded.
3. Everyone eventually dies.
"This" is a slippery slope fallacy coming from a self-proclaimed scientist:
1. Not all students become teachers.
2. Not all students are persuaded or remain persuaded.
3. Everyone eventually dies.
I wonder what the children of these climate criminals will think, as they survey their ruined world.
4
Show me the money!
Who contributes the money to develop this pitch?
These people are not scientist, they are employed to produce this thinking to support the contributors, BOSES.
Who contributes the money to develop this pitch?
These people are not scientist, they are employed to produce this thinking to support the contributors, BOSES.
8
Are you saying that anyone who raises a genuine scientific question or makes a genuine scientific criticism is selling snake oil?
Robert
No, I think Francis is saying that people who stake out a position in advance, refuse to consider alternative research, explain empirical observations with whimsical formulations, and refuse to even acknowledge an overwhelming consensus are selling snake oil.
Further, even if we grant Heartland their entire argument and repudiate all legitimate climate science, what are they saying we should do? Let Miami go under because the rising sea levels are natural?
At some point it doesn't matter why this happening (unless you actually wish to find constructive solutions), it matters what you plan to do to address the situation. Haven't heard Heartland speak on that, yet.
No, I think Francis is saying that people who stake out a position in advance, refuse to consider alternative research, explain empirical observations with whimsical formulations, and refuse to even acknowledge an overwhelming consensus are selling snake oil.
Further, even if we grant Heartland their entire argument and repudiate all legitimate climate science, what are they saying we should do? Let Miami go under because the rising sea levels are natural?
At some point it doesn't matter why this happening (unless you actually wish to find constructive solutions), it matters what you plan to do to address the situation. Haven't heard Heartland speak on that, yet.
1
Nothing is new under the Sun: first, it was not allowed to believe that the Earth circles the Sun; then the flat Earth, following by
4
Americans believe Lies.
America strives for mediocrity.
America strives for mediocrity.
6
Isn't teaching children false science information a form of Child Abuse ?
Teaching children creationism instead of science proven evolution should be considered a violation of separation of church and state.
One would think a person intelligent enough to have a teachers license would be smart enough to throw this Koch Brothers propaganda into the trash post haste.
Garbage in, garbage out.
Teaching children creationism instead of science proven evolution should be considered a violation of separation of church and state.
One would think a person intelligent enough to have a teachers license would be smart enough to throw this Koch Brothers propaganda into the trash post haste.
Garbage in, garbage out.
11
The academic level of training and certification for teachers working in the elementary levels of schooling is distressingly low. Another way of putting it is that we turn our children over to people who are intellectually and academically unqualified to teach them. Pity the Children and fear for the Nation.
1
It is a raucous hilarity for the fossil fume and reckless development industries to accuse climate scientists of working nefariously to get democrats elected. Just as the only mission of the NRA is to sell guns, the goal of climate quacks is to keep dirty energy robust and take a moon-sized wrecking ball to all that is beautiful and spacious from sea to shining sea.
10
Just another way to kill the United States. Welcome to the dark, new age.
6
You mean the Heartland Institute septic tank? I have had it with deceitful people usurpating the truth. We should not accept dragging America into this cesspool. We should demand that they explain and justify their claims in from of the whole world to see and hear.
Sneaking into schools through backdoors to contaminate teachers and children is something that is done in Saudi Arabia. Their intention is to turn America's brains into chaos so they can exploit and stuff them with religious mythologies. I'll make sure on my part to stop and humiliate them with facts.
Sneaking into schools through backdoors to contaminate teachers and children is something that is done in Saudi Arabia. Their intention is to turn America's brains into chaos so they can exploit and stuff them with religious mythologies. I'll make sure on my part to stop and humiliate them with facts.
8
Back in the days of outhouses this could have been used as toilet paper. It would have been better than some of the other things people used.
10
...Except it's probably slick, and my parents remember that those were not the most-desired pages of catalogs to use in the outhouse!
1
It is one thing to lie to ourselves about global warming avoiding a sense of responsibility, or protecting a failing ideology that Corporate America cares about Americans and solves our nation’s problems. But to lie to our children, who will suffer the consequences of our complacent ignorance about the science of global warming is like twisting the knife it their backs as we tell them we love them and kiss them good night. Corporate America has lied to us and we have collaborated by refusing to know the science and now we stand by as they lie to our children, denying our own children the opportunity to fight for their own futures.
This isn’t education this is the opposite. Have we no shame.
This isn’t education this is the opposite. Have we no shame.
89
This is among the most depressing articles I've read in a while. If science teachers can be misled (30% emphasize that global warming is likely due to natural causes????!!!!! only in the US...), how can anyone be surprised that the American public is so scientifically illiterate? Why the media--and the NY Times is guilty of this too--has provided so much playtime to the "alternative viewpoint" is beyond belief. Not every viewpoint is equally worthwhile.
81
Unfortunately most science teachers have had woefully little geology education. The history of the Earth, and the deep time involved, is instrumental in teaching the subject of climate change.
The time has come now to take climate deniers on a trip to the coast line of west Bengal in the slums of Kolkata to meet the climate refugees and the mothers who have become beggars after they lost their home, their land and livelihood due to rising sea. And then take the climate deniers to the international tribunal to prosecute them for crime against humanity
15
This follows upon the textbooks that say the Civil War was about States' Rights and ignore the existence of slavery in the South. Conservatives are very like Communists who choose to censor the truth in favor of ideology.
Read "1984" and you will see that they are no different than Stalinists or the Church hierarchy that forbade Galileo from teaching that the earth moves around the sun.
Meanwhile they will be using tax breaks to provide themselves with places to live when their poisoning of the truth leads to poisoning of the earth
Read "1984" and you will see that they are no different than Stalinists or the Church hierarchy that forbade Galileo from teaching that the earth moves around the sun.
Meanwhile they will be using tax breaks to provide themselves with places to live when their poisoning of the truth leads to poisoning of the earth
19
Well, Christine, I completely agree comparing the Climate Deniers to the Church Hierarchy vs. Galileo but horrible as the Stalinists were, they were not trying to destroy the planet. They are more like Henri Quatorze who said (if I have the right Henri) "apres moi le deluge", in other words, after I'm dead let the rest of the people drown. It's not going to bother me, after all.
3
Yes. That is an excellent analogy. Thanks for making it Mary.
..., well, the Americans now have an administration, which "disagrees" with scientific approaches altogether, so why not drive the ignorance all the way to the frontline? And in the process pollute the minds of children using falsehoods - what utter arrogance.
To think that this would actually play out as such - in 2017 - in America, a nation, which has contributed vastly scientifically throughout its statehood.
What on earth is going on?
One keeps looking for the camera (it must be there somewhere, please ...).
To think that this would actually play out as such - in 2017 - in America, a nation, which has contributed vastly scientifically throughout its statehood.
What on earth is going on?
One keeps looking for the camera (it must be there somewhere, please ...).
15
Well said, Mr. Thyregod. I grew up in post-sputnik America, when science was promoted in the name of national defense, and the resulting explosion of technology brought ever-higher living standards. Yes, there were unaccounted costs, too often socialized or "environmental"; I know about them because I was raised, trained and taught by experience to respect facts and logic and eschew wishful thinking. The recent rejection of even of the idea of reality, by so many of my fellow citizens, has left me bemused.
1
What is going on? It is greed, plain and simple. Republicans, who have not exhibited a shred of decency for decades now, know that they can drive fear and obscure truth to line their pockets, but they also know that there are still a lot of intelligent people in the U.S., so they conduct underhanded activities like attacking children's education via teachers. I know many teachers who wouldn't find this booklet suitable to wipe their back sides, I also know some who are devout religious fanatics.
I cannot help but feel that America is in the fight for its life. These are very unsettling times!
I cannot help but feel that America is in the fight for its life. These are very unsettling times!
2
For those who believe that the era of Galileo and his condemnation by the Catholic Church is over, think again. There is however one great difference between those times and now. When Galileo provided evidence backing Copernicus's contention that the earth circled the sun, he threatened the power of the Church. When climate change deniers disseminate their unscientific junk, they unfortunately threaten the viability of our planet and humankind.
35
Lesothaman writes "...they unfortunately threaten the viability of our planet ..."
No, the already 4.5-billion-year-old planet will continue on its life journey just fine, with or without humans riding along with it.
No, the already 4.5-billion-year-old planet will continue on its life journey just fine, with or without humans riding along with it.
Some three decades ago, the scientists at (then) Exxon had realized the correlation, between climate change and human activity. The Chief Scientists conveyed that message to the Board--Twice. XOM went on to hire some of the same law firms, which represented Big Tobacco in its case to continue advertising.
This was written-up, in a cute Op-Ed tin NYT about a pre-teen daughter of one of the Exxon scientists winning her school science fair, using a project that seemed to confirm Human Activity Contributing to Climate Change.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
This was written-up, in a cute Op-Ed tin NYT about a pre-teen daughter of one of the Exxon scientists winning her school science fair, using a project that seemed to confirm Human Activity Contributing to Climate Change.
https://thetruthoncommonsense.com
8
Lets hear both sides to this issue
5
Both sides are out there freely available to the curious. Just type in Climate Change into your browser and start reading. A good place to start would be NASA's website and email updates on what data their satellites are transmitting to us. The European Space Agency is also heavily involved in gathering data..
I do wish the NYT would devote some of their energies to explaining why the Earth's climate has evolved and changed over millions of years and how human activity (Industrial Revolution, etc.) is contibuting to the rate and effects of the current change. Perhaps the editorial board might see fit to devote a couple of full print pages to not only show the Science but where the money comes from that funds the organizations that keep beating the Climate Change Denial drums.
I do wish the NYT would devote some of their energies to explaining why the Earth's climate has evolved and changed over millions of years and how human activity (Industrial Revolution, etc.) is contibuting to the rate and effects of the current change. Perhaps the editorial board might see fit to devote a couple of full print pages to not only show the Science but where the money comes from that funds the organizations that keep beating the Climate Change Denial drums.
Both sides? The science is ongoing and there is as much, if not more, evidence to support climate change as there is for plate tectonics. The idea that there are 2 sides to this story is a fallacy promoted by Big Oil/Gas and Big Coal corporations that want you to continue to support an industry based on non-renewable resource extraction and consumption.
3
Barb,
There really aren’t two sides to this issue, if you’re talking about the science. There is one side that claims that the climate is warming and a majority of that warming is due to human activities, and that side is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence…and there is the other side that denies that, and has only lies and disinformation to support its claim.
There really aren’t two sides to this issue, if you’re talking about the science. There is one side that claims that the climate is warming and a majority of that warming is due to human activities, and that side is overwhelmingly supported by the evidence…and there is the other side that denies that, and has only lies and disinformation to support its claim.
1
The "scientific" community has such a horrific record when it comes to their hysterical predictions, why should I believe this one? Remember heterosexual AIDS, ALAR, Ebola, Bird Flu, Swine Flu, Silicone Implants, Vanishing Rain Forest, Save the Whales? The list goes on and on. None of the predictions ever came true, it's just a great way to control humans that are ignorant. Maybe the earth is warming a smidge, that's what happens. Is it caused by us evil humans? No, I'm not buying it.
4
Thank you for demonstrating so perfectly what ignorance sounds like. Science is not in the business of prophecy. It offers extrapolations based on the best knowledge available. Your list is a hodge-podge of real dangers that were averted by application of science (Ebola) and some nonsense dreamed up by Alex Jones ("Save the Whales"? Really?) And finally, it's nice that you are not "buying it" but who cares? Not the rest of the world which understands the threat of climate change even if JP in Portland does not.
2
JP, That list of Earth's and Humanity's woes continues! Do you read?
2
so what? let them waste their money. is the author really concerned that science teachers are going to be duped.
3
Unfortunately, science teachers are being duped. Most know nearly nothing about geology, or the history of the Earth, for one. And also, teachers are verbally assaulted by ultra-conservative parents and principals on a regular basis.
4
Apparently, 30% of them have been so badly educated themselves that they do believe the rubbish in this book. Wouldn't it be a good thing to know the names of those who fund this venture? Cui bono?
3
As an educator, I would have to say that any teacher of science who did not take the time to investigate issues as substantive and consequential as climate change in order to instruct their teaching was not doing their job. It's as simple as that. My students are instructed to question everything. Research and find out for yourself. Don't even believe everything that I say until you can validate it. It takes some work but in this age of "fake news" it is essential.
19
And once again we have the same tactic, 'a death by a thousand cuts', the other side of the aisle uses to get rid of something when they can't do away with it in 'one fell swoop'. Insidious. These people are despicable.
12
Yep -- the mirror image of the leftist extremists' stealth decay since the 1960s of what used to be our highly productive culture of grown-up, responsible, self-supporting citizens. Their success is clear, if today's media content is indicative: We now must cope with a fifth column of lazy victims who can't think their way out of a paper bag, except to work the strings of the the entitlement lobby.
Seems like the old Wall Street Hedge Fund "IBG YBG"* philosophy has metastasized from finance to the rest of society. The rationale didn't work out well for us then and it certainly won't in this situation. If one will never suffer any consequences there's no incentive to alter behavior.
* I'll Be Gone You'll Be Gone
* I'll Be Gone You'll Be Gone
2
It's getting pretty obvious that you can indeed fool approx. 40% of Americans "all of the time."
20
The big picture is: the earth is flat.
7
When you believe that the Universe was created in 6 literal days a couple thousand years ago, in talking snakes and Prophets who made the Sun stand still it is not so hard to reject Peer Reviewed Science. The Suspension of Disbelief required to be a Bible Literalist can transfer to Climate Change Denial very easily.
I was raised in the Evangelical Church, so I speak from first hand knowledge and experience. Many- if not most- have no problem of mixing Church and State. Christian Dominionists like our Vice-President actually see it their duty to bring Government into their control. This kind of thinking is broadcast on Radio Stations operated as Tax Exempt "Ministries" that broadcast programs far more about political policy than the Kingdom of any Deity.
Polk Award Winning Author and Journalist Jeremy Scahill has written about our Vice President and this line of thinking at The Intercept. A link to the article is here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful...
I am not sure why, but most national media has Given the Trump Administration and Mr Pence a pass on his espoused beliefs where they intersect with policy and politics.
The Heartland Institute- part of the Koch Funded Network of Foundations, Think Tanks & AstroTurf Groups and also a member of The American Legislative Exchange Council, is making a frontal assault on our children and the planet's future through our schools and Universities.
I was raised in the Evangelical Church, so I speak from first hand knowledge and experience. Many- if not most- have no problem of mixing Church and State. Christian Dominionists like our Vice-President actually see it their duty to bring Government into their control. This kind of thinking is broadcast on Radio Stations operated as Tax Exempt "Ministries" that broadcast programs far more about political policy than the Kingdom of any Deity.
Polk Award Winning Author and Journalist Jeremy Scahill has written about our Vice President and this line of thinking at The Intercept. A link to the article is here:
https://theintercept.com/2016/11/15/mike-pence-will-be-the-most-powerful...
I am not sure why, but most national media has Given the Trump Administration and Mr Pence a pass on his espoused beliefs where they intersect with policy and politics.
The Heartland Institute- part of the Koch Funded Network of Foundations, Think Tanks & AstroTurf Groups and also a member of The American Legislative Exchange Council, is making a frontal assault on our children and the planet's future through our schools and Universities.
28
Religion and national defense are the two live wires that no one in politics dare touch.
1
No matter how much doubt the Heartland Institute's marketing campaign spreads, the scientific evidence of a rise in the earth's temperature and the harmful effects, remains; thankfully, economic factors are driving the movement to a 100% renewable energy future worldwide. In fact, the amount of clean energy additions in developing countries exceeded developed countries in 2015.
5
What I find disturbing, if these 'climate scientists' are to be believed, and they had indeed proved their scientific hypothesis through the Rigor of the Scientific Method with empirical evidence and replicated experiments, is that 10% don't agree with the results. Indeed, it should only take two scientists using the aforementioned Scientific Method to: 1. present the Scientific Theory, and 2. to Replicate the results.
Sadly, all they have is statistical data, based on a suspect protocol for inferring the presence of CO2, an invisible gas, that like methane, nitrogen oxide, and other gases is impervious to direct spectrographic analysis.
From NOAA:
'Infrared absorption. How does the CO2 analyzer work?
Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide (as other three atom molecule gases) absorbs infrared radiation, contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light. More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector. We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.'
Sadly, all they have is statistical data, based on a suspect protocol for inferring the presence of CO2, an invisible gas, that like methane, nitrogen oxide, and other gases is impervious to direct spectrographic analysis.
From NOAA:
'Infrared absorption. How does the CO2 analyzer work?
Air is slowly pumped through a small cylindrical cell with flat windows on both ends. Infrared light is transmitted through one window, through the cell, through the second window, and is measured by a detector that is sensitive to infrared radiation. In the atmosphere carbon dioxide (as other three atom molecule gases) absorbs infrared radiation, contributing to warming of the earth surface. Also in the cell CO2 absorbs infrared light. More CO2 in the cell causes more absorption, leaving less light to hit the detector. We turn the detector signal, which is registered in volts, into a measure of the amount of CO2 in the cell through extensive and automated (always ongoing) calibration procedures.'
2
Received one of these several weeks ago as a high science teacher teaching AP Environmental Science. Gave it a quick look. Didn't have to read past the forward of the book to come to the realization that this was complete drivel. Thanks for getting the word out to the rest of your readers as to some of the attempts to try to hijack the proven scientific discussion and findings that should be directing our actions. The book is useful in one regard. It helps to level my wobbly desk. I'll keep it there while I continue to teach the truth about climate change. I'll recycle it when I retire. From there it hopefully will be turned into a great piece of literature.
20
The implied objective of this piece is to stop the Heartland Institute from propagandizing. Ways to do that aren't proposed.
The problem is not just this particular issue of climate change or whatever you want to call it. It is not even the broader goal of discrediting science and building a community of anti-intellectuals.
The problem is how to contain well-financed ideologues without enabling more general censorship. It may be fortunate that this issue arrives during the Trump administration, which is widely recognized to have a tenuous relationship to facts and to the common weal.
The threat of putting this Administration in charge of free speech is clear. How to interrupt the spread of disrespect for education and thought itself is not clear at all.
The problem is not just this particular issue of climate change or whatever you want to call it. It is not even the broader goal of discrediting science and building a community of anti-intellectuals.
The problem is how to contain well-financed ideologues without enabling more general censorship. It may be fortunate that this issue arrives during the Trump administration, which is widely recognized to have a tenuous relationship to facts and to the common weal.
The threat of putting this Administration in charge of free speech is clear. How to interrupt the spread of disrespect for education and thought itself is not clear at all.
4
As a geologist, and chemistry teacher in public school, their little pamphlet will be used in my classroom to show students how special interests use propaganda to misinform the public. The fact that I use to most effect with high school science students when explaining this idea is that natural cycles occur, and they learn how this happens. They learn about how great increases of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that have taken up to 5 million years to vary that greatly, with catastrophic effects on the life on Earth. Then, they simply have to ask: What is the effect of this same cycle, being induced by non-thinking humans, happening over a period of 100 years? A catastrophe of several orders of magnitude greater is what they typically conclude, of course.
20
I am a professor at a public university and teach in the environmental sciences. I received this book in the mail and initially, based on the envelope, thought it was published by the NY Times. I brought it to class and had my students evaluate it themselves-- the mailing, the preface of the book and the contents. It helped reinforce ideas we have worked on all semester about learning to critically evaluate your sources. That being said, I found it deeply disturbing as an educator to be on the receiving end of this propaganda and worry about how other science educators around the country would handle this material.
26
Why not teach critical thinking by presenting the evidence and argumentation and students' and teachers' own observations and experiences, and let the students formulate their own theses? Students should be learning about the world around them, how to be wise and judicious stewards and users of the land, and how to keep the planet and themselves healthy. Teachers don't need to "teach" about global climate change; they can help students PAY ATTENTION and THINK, then ACT.
2
Not so fast there! Don't you realize that the whole issue of teaching critical thinking is controversial in some places? In 2012, the Texas Republican Party Platform didn't cotton much to teaching kids such a radical concept:
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
In other words, "don't teach kids how to think for themselves; we'll tell them what to think!"
"Knowledge-Based Education – We oppose the teaching of Higher Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) (values clarification), critical thinking skills and similar programs that are simply a relabeling of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) (mastery learning) which focus on behavior modification and have the purpose of challenging the student’s fixed beliefs and undermining parental authority."
In other words, "don't teach kids how to think for themselves; we'll tell them what to think!"
2
The good news is that the U.S. is the only wealthy democracy where scientific reality is broadly denied.
7
This sounds like a great tool for teachers. It creates a wonderful learning opportunity - to analyze its scientific flaws and potential societal and environmental harm. And as a big picture conversation, teachers can use it to discuss the flaws of our political system, including the power of special interest groups and misinformation. Don't underestimate the intelligence of teachers. Especially science teachers!
7
I don't mind teaching that the climate is changing and that humans may contribute to that change, but teaching that it leads to certain results, like NYC being underwater in 100 years is unscientific and irresponsible. Virtually every claim of climate catastrophe, from a new ice age to the oceans rising by mass extinctions, hasn't come true. Teach science, which is verifiable, not speculation of what might happen because of it.
4
Since no climate scientist has predicted that New York will be under water in 100 years, claiming that they have is unscientific and irresponsible. No climate scientist has projected a new ice age- one story in a magazine 40 years ago does not undermine the overwhelming evidence of global warming used to establish the current state of the science. Oceans are rising, although the estimates of ocean levels in 2100 is uncertain, ranging from about 30 cm to over a meter, with the uncertainty arising because of uncertainty of the melting rate of the great ice sheets. The science climate science is based on is, and has been, verifiable and verified, for a century or more.
3
Many ill effects of climate change/human activity are already readily apparent.
-Oceanic warming and acidification impacting fisheries
-Small South Pacific islands losing land mass from rising oceans
-Huge swaths of coral dying
-More extreme weather patterns
-Oceanic warming and acidification impacting fisheries
-Small South Pacific islands losing land mass from rising oceans
-Huge swaths of coral dying
-More extreme weather patterns
2
Not true at all. Predictions have proven all too reliable.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-p...
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/climate-science-predictions-p...
1
So where's the book from the climate scientists? Our country is over run with people making stuff up. Countering ignorance needs to be quick and relentless. Science teachers should know better, but don't stop there. All teachers should know the truth about the overwhelming evidence convincing 90%+ of climate scientists that spewing out heat trapping gases will, and has, warmed the planet. Why do people think human activity can't impact the earth? I am dumbfounded by the lack of knowledge and critical thinking skills.
4
As trump said, 'america is a nation of believers" (not reasoners) . Barnum noted that "there's one born every minute". this strategy will work as the level critical thinking in the public is so low that anything said loudly enough, using short words containing hard consonants, will easily gain followers. the human race is sliding backward.
5
There is no other first world country with such poor and politicized science education. No wonder silicon valley needs so many foreign engineers and scientists. Frankly I wish they go back to promoting creationism - seems less risky to the planet even if equally anti-science.
6
It's hard to compete with those who receive first class higher educations at no or low cost. There lies the major problem within our country. Who can afford college here anymore? Especially in the sciences.
Presidential Apprentice Mar-a-Lago Donald Trump has incredibly and dishonestly claimed that climate change is a covert and overt socioeconomic political educational plot of the People's Republic of China.
And 46% of American voters agreed with Trump's fairy tale. Including 58% of white American voters made up of 62% of white men and 54% of white women.
Science is the currently best provisional natural explanation for observed natural phenomena based upon the best current natural data. Science uses double blind tests to produce controlled repeatable predictable results.
And 46% of American voters agreed with Trump's fairy tale. Including 58% of white American voters made up of 62% of white men and 54% of white women.
Science is the currently best provisional natural explanation for observed natural phenomena based upon the best current natural data. Science uses double blind tests to produce controlled repeatable predictable results.
3
Please note that "scientific consensus" has no value in the process of evaluating any scientific theory, especially so due to the admitted fact that only "published climate scientists" get to express their opinions on this.
Just to take it to absurd, if every human on earth agreed that the earth is flat, it would not make it true.
The first basic principle of science is that any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, else the "theory" of elves in the garden can't be excluded from being "science".
For many years the proponents of climate change have been claiming that "the science of climate change is settled", which is absolute anathema to science - NO theory is EVER settled.
Science is about finding the principles driving nature, this is an ongoing continuous process which can disprove any current theory if evidence is proven against it - no theory is immune, nothing is settled.
Just to take it to absurd, if every human on earth agreed that the earth is flat, it would not make it true.
The first basic principle of science is that any scientific theory MUST be falsifiable, else the "theory" of elves in the garden can't be excluded from being "science".
For many years the proponents of climate change have been claiming that "the science of climate change is settled", which is absolute anathema to science - NO theory is EVER settled.
Science is about finding the principles driving nature, this is an ongoing continuous process which can disprove any current theory if evidence is proven against it - no theory is immune, nothing is settled.
3
Paul, the thing about "falsifiablity" isn't an issue here - that's from a very basic level of the philosophy of science. All the proposals for and against global warming are as falsifiable as they need to be. The next step is to go ahead and see which ones are actually false. As it happens, the proposition that the Earth is warming turns out not to be false.
The thing about "settled" science: in a meaningless, abstract sense, maybe "nothing is settled". In a meaningful, pragmatic sense, lots of things are settled, and usually lots of details remain to be worked out.
In our case, the over-all truth of human-caused global warming, with serious consequences, is settled. There are still plenty of details to be studied, as we observe the actual melting of the ice-caps, for instance. It is a serious mistake to confuse the ongoing refinement of a proposition, with a refutation of the proposition itself.
The thing about "settled" science: in a meaningless, abstract sense, maybe "nothing is settled". In a meaningful, pragmatic sense, lots of things are settled, and usually lots of details remain to be worked out.
In our case, the over-all truth of human-caused global warming, with serious consequences, is settled. There are still plenty of details to be studied, as we observe the actual melting of the ice-caps, for instance. It is a serious mistake to confuse the ongoing refinement of a proposition, with a refutation of the proposition itself.
3
Yes, how dare the experts weigh in on their field of expertise. Equal weight should surely be given to my opinions about how to build a large bridge even though I don't have an engineering degree.
1
Well said. Spot on.
I don't think it's out of line to point out that The New York Times just hired a climate change denier, Bret Stephens, as an opinion columnist. Just this past Sunday, Mr. Stephens offered up this head-scratcher: "A guy I know just had a baby and he’s a big global warming, climate change activist. If he thinks in 20 years we’ll be heading toward unsustainable climates and there will be tens of millions of people being displaced, presumably including himself, at the most apocalyptic level, then presumably he wouldn’t be having children."
The Times' Public Editor responded to the predictable outcry over the hiring of Mr. Stephens with an incredibly condescending post about how we're all living in intellectual bubbles.
Professor Stager: Thank you for this piece and for expressing the kind of conviction that the Times should (at long last) bring to its Op-Ed hiring practices.
The Times' Public Editor responded to the predictable outcry over the hiring of Mr. Stephens with an incredibly condescending post about how we're all living in intellectual bubbles.
Professor Stager: Thank you for this piece and for expressing the kind of conviction that the Times should (at long last) bring to its Op-Ed hiring practices.
5
People used to accuse Liberals of being 'relativist' and lacking firm moral principles. I think progressive's do have firm morals on the climate issue and it is rather simple; climate change deniers are committing evil in their actions to sow confusion on this topic. How should we treat people who injure all of us by their treasonous, evil actions? My favorite is to compare climate change to gravity. As far as i understand there are at least two ( general relativity ans quantum mechanics) theories for gravity while the effect of CO2 on atmospheric heating is well understood. So since gravity is only a theory all climate change deniers must be forced to 'take a leap of faith' off the roof to show their contempt for 'mere theory'. I guess the prevalence of guns in the hands of deniers might complicate this but ...
2
> climate change deniers are committing evil in their actions to sow confusion on this topic. How should we treat people who injure all of us by their treasonous, evil actions?
I hear that North Korea has some job openings in its security services.
I hear that North Korea has some job openings in its security services.
In the early James Bond movies, Smersh and Spectre were cartoon cabals out to destroy the earth. Haha! For the past 50 years, though, we’ve had the genuine article: the Kochs, the Exxons, the Trumps, the entire Republican party. It's unfathomable how evil these people are to literally destroy the earth and continue to lie about it at this late date, all for their personal short-term profit. The US produces more greenhouse gases per capita -- by far -- than any other country. We like to point at China, but China has five times our population. They're also the world's leader in climate change mitigation technology and alternative transportation. Trump, the so-called President, says he’s going to create jobs with coal and oil, those outdated, disastrous resources. The US, under his short thumb, is now a hostile, rogue state making war on the world, doing everything it can to worsen the already dire situation. James Bond, we need you!
4
In a hundred years the Heartland Institute will publish a book about how droughts, deluges, famines and disappearing coasts are God's punishment and how nobody listened when Heartland tried to put the nation on the righteous path.
10
When my copy arrived in the mail I tossed it immediately, because I was well aware of the Heartland Institute's agenda and because I knew reading it would just make my blood boil. But Dr. Stager is right - some teachers will undoubtedly read and believe it.
So why isn't some pro-truth group publishing an equally glossy book that contains some actual science, and sending it to the same 200,000 teachers?
So why isn't some pro-truth group publishing an equally glossy book that contains some actual science, and sending it to the same 200,000 teachers?
We could teach children that you can't drink oil and you can't eat dollar bills or gold. Most people like to eat and drink water. If we can convince those who don't agree with climate change this basic maybe they'll come around and understand.
You can add clean air to this too.
You can add clean air to this too.
1
Who are the funders behind the Heartland Institute? This would have been good information to include in the article.
2
If American teachers are that gullible, then we will know that they were never America's best and brightest, won't we?
3
The Heartland Institute is a likely target for the dark money contributions of Charles and David Koch.
3
Sounds just like the issues in public education with the teaching of evolution versus intelligent design, creationism, and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Why not take some pages out of the evolution playbook to combat the nonsense from those denying anthropogenic global warming and the associated problems with climate change?
First, it is not just public schools... I teach AP Environmental Science at an elite private school in Connecticut and our entire science department has received these pamphlets. My response? I assign it to the kids as part of a persuasive writing assignment. They watch the amazing Greg Craven's YouTube video, read the pamphlet and a recent Science journal publication that compares the anti-Climate Change lobby to the anti-tobacco lobby. Guess what? I've never had a child see the Heritage pamphlet as anything less than an amateurish attempt at propaganda.
6
The author notes, "The book is unscientific propaganda from authors with connections to the disinformation-machinery of the Heartland Institute."
I'd like to see that pursued a step further. With what does the Heartland Institute itself have connections? Fossil-fuel interests? Some form of religion or ideology that doesn't hold with science? The name suggests nativist, Arcadian, stopped-clock conservatism. Is that it?
Or are they simply in the business of knee-jerk perversity?
I'd like to see that pursued a step further. With what does the Heartland Institute itself have connections? Fossil-fuel interests? Some form of religion or ideology that doesn't hold with science? The name suggests nativist, Arcadian, stopped-clock conservatism. Is that it?
Or are they simply in the business of knee-jerk perversity?
1
While I embrace the current scientific consensus on climate change I'm continually annoyed by the phrase "Global warming is real". It seems to smack of fanatic religiosity.
2
You know, while I'm not a big fan of book-burning in general, this article makes me want to go build a bonfire, fed by the Heartland Institute's propaganda -- and let's not call it anything besides what it is, pure propaganda.
2
The power of the rich depends on the availability and abundance of the poor.
Keeping people ignorant works greatly to the advantage of those in power for they're much easier to manipulate and control.
We don't educate our children as well because they may be needed as future war fodder. The dumbing down of America is not by any means an accident.
Intentionally keeping the populace under educated makes it easier to elect people like Trump and others. Plus hardly anyone knows how the government works anymore and can't even name the three branches of it. Talk to any person under 30 or even 40, they know almost nothing about government and how it operates, absolutely nothing. This bodes not well for the future.
Keeping people ignorant works greatly to the advantage of those in power for they're much easier to manipulate and control.
We don't educate our children as well because they may be needed as future war fodder. The dumbing down of America is not by any means an accident.
Intentionally keeping the populace under educated makes it easier to elect people like Trump and others. Plus hardly anyone knows how the government works anymore and can't even name the three branches of it. Talk to any person under 30 or even 40, they know almost nothing about government and how it operates, absolutely nothing. This bodes not well for the future.
3
Maybe the people on the religious right should try reading their bible. As I recall God drown the last science deniers.
7
Ah - the compassionate left!
Very simple and yes, evil. Keep them " uneducated " and they'll grow up to vote GOP. In other words, grow your own. So sad.
80
“Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming,”
Scientists DON't disagree about global warming.
Claims made without evidence can be summarily dismissed (you know, the scientific method). Bast needs to make a case and present evidence. Sound bites and false narratives don't count. Is Bast a scientist, a physicist? The laws of nature apply to everything, everywhere all the time, from airplane design to climate change.
It no longer matters what anybody thinks or teaches anymore with respect to the looming environmental disaster in the not so distant future.
The population of the earth has grown by roughly 8 million people (eg. a New York city) since the last time I wrote my previous dire "it's all over" comments one month ago.
The earth has another roughly another 5 billion years to go.
The human species is toast.
Every large body of ice is melting, sea temperature, acidity, and levels are rising, mass extinction is on-going, resource depletion (potable water, arable land, aquifer levels) is-ongoing, pollution, ppm CO2 rising, etc (this list is far from complete). Disease, famine, and pestilence of biblical proportions is ... alright enough already. All of this is plainly visible to the scientific community.
No true scientist would buy any of the crap Heartland Institute is putting out.
Science does not have a political party, is neither conservative or liberal.
Scientists DON't disagree about global warming.
Claims made without evidence can be summarily dismissed (you know, the scientific method). Bast needs to make a case and present evidence. Sound bites and false narratives don't count. Is Bast a scientist, a physicist? The laws of nature apply to everything, everywhere all the time, from airplane design to climate change.
It no longer matters what anybody thinks or teaches anymore with respect to the looming environmental disaster in the not so distant future.
The population of the earth has grown by roughly 8 million people (eg. a New York city) since the last time I wrote my previous dire "it's all over" comments one month ago.
The earth has another roughly another 5 billion years to go.
The human species is toast.
Every large body of ice is melting, sea temperature, acidity, and levels are rising, mass extinction is on-going, resource depletion (potable water, arable land, aquifer levels) is-ongoing, pollution, ppm CO2 rising, etc (this list is far from complete). Disease, famine, and pestilence of biblical proportions is ... alright enough already. All of this is plainly visible to the scientific community.
No true scientist would buy any of the crap Heartland Institute is putting out.
Science does not have a political party, is neither conservative or liberal.
38
I have not seen accurate science coming from either party.
And yet, curiously enough, prosperity and mortality are increasing and environmental deaths are decreasing.
And yet, curiously enough, one should expect this in some of the first world regions before a crash.
The massive resource depletion issues in the middle east for example triggers wars and mass migrations. In that region prosperity and mortality decreased.
The massive resource depletion issues in the middle east for example triggers wars and mass migrations. In that region prosperity and mortality decreased.
Why plan for sustainability if the Rapture is around the corner?
38
Exactly the problem, and the reason that the GOP conservatives turn their back on it.
6
because not all are of the elect
To scorched earth corporatists (mining, oil and gas) the Rapture = Profits. Nothing is as spiritually uplifting as a booming stock price and a corporate bonus. Climate Change science stands in the way of short term profiteering at the expense of long term environmental and human health. It's that simple.
In the 1990's the good people at Heartland worked with Philip Morris to sow doubt on research regarding exposure to second hand smoke.
Who else funds Heartland? You won't believe this but ExxonMobil has been a significant donor, as has Charles Koch. With a foreword by a Breitbart columnist -- they aren't even trying to look sincere, are they. What is clear is they really don't care who gets hurt as long as their backers' pockets are lined with cash.
Who else funds Heartland? You won't believe this but ExxonMobil has been a significant donor, as has Charles Koch. With a foreword by a Breitbart columnist -- they aren't even trying to look sincere, are they. What is clear is they really don't care who gets hurt as long as their backers' pockets are lined with cash.
64
Bingo! Thank you Paula for being so succinct, rational, and brief. And your insightful statement should be e-mailed by Commenters to all their members of Congress.
2
The recent Marches for Science hit a nerve with many on the right. Lots of damage control going on in conservative media over the past few days, much of which, ironically, politicizes science.
It is easy to fall into the same trap. There is a general lack of understanding as to what "science" means. It's not magic, its not a religion, it is not political, it is just a powerful way of analyzing data dispassionately to validate real world observations.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens has a couple of dangerous bugs in its operating system. Confirmation bias is one of the most glaring. We tend to ignore all data that does not conform to our beliefs. We focus only on what supports our world view, no matter how flawed. The scientific method acknowledges this. Scientists also propose flawed theories. After all they are just human. By releasing data for public peer review, errors are pointed out and refinements are suggested over time.
Science can't predict the future, but it can identify the most likely way to produce a positive outcome.
Global climate change is the elephant in the room - the overwhelming consensus is that it is happening and that it is human caused. But science also tells us that vaccinations are not correlated to autism, and GMO's are safe for consumption.
Collect the data, retain the data and make it widely available for review. Thats the only way to improve outcomes - over time. It's called science.
It is easy to fall into the same trap. There is a general lack of understanding as to what "science" means. It's not magic, its not a religion, it is not political, it is just a powerful way of analyzing data dispassionately to validate real world observations.
Homo Sapiens Sapiens has a couple of dangerous bugs in its operating system. Confirmation bias is one of the most glaring. We tend to ignore all data that does not conform to our beliefs. We focus only on what supports our world view, no matter how flawed. The scientific method acknowledges this. Scientists also propose flawed theories. After all they are just human. By releasing data for public peer review, errors are pointed out and refinements are suggested over time.
Science can't predict the future, but it can identify the most likely way to produce a positive outcome.
Global climate change is the elephant in the room - the overwhelming consensus is that it is happening and that it is human caused. But science also tells us that vaccinations are not correlated to autism, and GMO's are safe for consumption.
Collect the data, retain the data and make it widely available for review. Thats the only way to improve outcomes - over time. It's called science.
28
Science can indeed predict the future. That is the essence of a good theory: to predict what will happen. Else it's of no use at all.
Science landed us on the moon and eradicated smallpox. It also immolated Hiroshima and poisoned our environment. In other words, it's a powerful tool. It would be nice to keep using it, if maybe a little more wisely.
Science landed us on the moon and eradicated smallpox. It also immolated Hiroshima and poisoned our environment. In other words, it's a powerful tool. It would be nice to keep using it, if maybe a little more wisely.
2
If what you say is true, then why is it so difficult to make progress against climate change? Could it be that those yelling the loudest are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices?
Have then tell this to the kids:
Many scientists are now predicting that within the next 150 years, there will be massive human suffering due an acceleration of temperature rise by way of a methane hydrate feedback loop in the Arctic leading to human extinction.
Massive methane reserves below the Arctic Ocean floor and Arctic land areas represent around 100 times the amount required to cause another Permian like major extinction event. These large quantities of Methane Hydrates are now trapped in a frozen state. As temperatures rise from our CO2 emissions, darkened Arctic land mass and oceans there are being exposed to the sun. As temperatures rise beyond the hydrate freezing point, methane is released. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, for the first 20 years 84 times more potent. The feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F degrees) increase. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. During the Permian extinction; after 6 C was reached, the ocean surface waters at their extreme eventually reached more than 40 degrees Celsius. (104 degrees Fahrenheit) That led to near total planetary life extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Many scientists are now predicting that within the next 150 years, there will be massive human suffering due an acceleration of temperature rise by way of a methane hydrate feedback loop in the Arctic leading to human extinction.
Massive methane reserves below the Arctic Ocean floor and Arctic land areas represent around 100 times the amount required to cause another Permian like major extinction event. These large quantities of Methane Hydrates are now trapped in a frozen state. As temperatures rise from our CO2 emissions, darkened Arctic land mass and oceans there are being exposed to the sun. As temperatures rise beyond the hydrate freezing point, methane is released. Over a 100-year timeframe methane is about 35 times more potent than carbon dioxide, for the first 20 years 84 times more potent. The feedback loop will begin to “kick in” after a 2 C degrees (3.6 F degrees) increase. Our civilization is approaching that 2 C figure. During the Permian extinction; after 6 C was reached, the ocean surface waters at their extreme eventually reached more than 40 degrees Celsius. (104 degrees Fahrenheit) That led to near total planetary life extinction.
www.InquiryAbraham.com
Feels Handmaid's Tale-ish.
5
"Feels Handmaid's Tale-ish."
That's not very informative, unless you say why.
That's not very informative, unless you say why.
This should be deemed criminal, in view of its potential effects on the minds of schoolchildren.
34
"... its potential effects on the minds of schoolchildren."
Teachers have "minds" too, so you are overreacting.
Teachers have "minds" too, so you are overreacting.
It's time to stop sugar coating what these organizations are and what the consequences of their actions will be. They are destroying our children's futures, they are changing the planet for the worst, they are guilty of crimes against humanity.
What I've never understood about the climate change deniers is this: Money alone cannot help you here. Sure, you can wall yourself off in a mansion and build a bunker, but you can't completely protect yourself and your family from the catastrophe of climate change. What about their children and grandchildren?
40
It wasn't that long ago when Time Magazine ran a story including a cover page discussing the horrors of "global cooling". The majority of scientists today stand firm on the global warming theory. Are they right? I don't know. Was the last generation of scientists correct about global cooling? I don't know. if we look at climate on earth in 50 year or 100 year cycles is that accurate? The Earth is millions of years old.
Can someone...anyone...tell me what the temperature is supposed to be on earth and why they think that to be true?
Can someone...anyone...tell me what the temperature is supposed to be on earth and why they think that to be true?
4
"Can someone...anyone...tell me what the temperature is supposed to be on earth and why they think that to be true?".....The temperature on earth is based on the balance between incoming and outgoing energy. Incoming energy from the sun and outgoing energy lost into space by infrared irradiation. A portion of the outgoing infrared irradiation that otherwise would have been lost to space is trapped and retained as heat on earth by green house gases in the atmosphere. Increase the amounts of green house gas in the atmosphere and more heat will be retained. Now that is somewhat over simplistic, but it captures the gist of the problem.
19
Yes, they can. Maybe not "should", but they can tell you how life on earth will change as the temperature rises.
Please, don't cite Time as some kind of scientific resource. This isn't a debate about some putative sociological trend. There's a lot of evidence, and it all points one way. To treat it as a controversy is to insult your own intelligence.
Please, don't cite Time as some kind of scientific resource. This isn't a debate about some putative sociological trend. There's a lot of evidence, and it all points one way. To treat it as a controversy is to insult your own intelligence.
Seriously?
As Scientific American points out in its intro to a story on this alleged controversy:
"Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek (not Time) in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed"
As Scientific American points out in its intro to a story on this alleged controversy:
"Nine paragraphs written for Newsweek (not Time) in 1975 continue to trump 40 years of climate science. It is a record that has its author amazed"
The big lie of "conservatism" is comprised of a trillion smaller, richly-sponsored fibs. The glossy throw-away described in this article is one such fib, albeit a potentially lethal fib.
For any good science teacher, however, the pamphlet should offer a superb teaching resource as a negative foil to scientific evidence, effective inquiry, honest argumentation and critical thinking.
Teachers unite! Don't toss the throw-away. Turn the lies upon the liars.
For any good science teacher, however, the pamphlet should offer a superb teaching resource as a negative foil to scientific evidence, effective inquiry, honest argumentation and critical thinking.
Teachers unite! Don't toss the throw-away. Turn the lies upon the liars.
"Conservative think tank" is an oxymoron. "There are none so blind as those who will not see."
30
I am a physics professor at the University of Illinois. When the book arrived in my mailbox at the university I looked it over, then threw it into the nearest trash can. But now I regret that I didn't tear the pages out to recycle.
25
I hope that this generation of schoolteachers isn't hoodwinked by anti-environmental propaganda. On the other hand, given the poor grounding in science among science teachers in the country today, I worry.
Thirty years of progressive school of education thinking -- and of conservative refusal to educate at all -- has dumbed down curricula everywhere. As someone who began teaching in the late 1970s and enjoyed working with colleagues, I saw, years later, new teachers coming along who had a hard time constructing a grammatically correct sentence, couldn't figure out who Stalin and Hitler were, and didn't know much about science.
Decades ago, conservatives began infiltrating school boards and school libraries. They banned science books that mentioned dinosaurs in any capacity except that of subverting the truth about the Creation, or didn't specify God's part in the creation of tsunamis; as well as works of literature that dealt with witchcraft (no reading of The Crucible for them!) or showed black people as human (forget Twain's Huckleberry Finn).
And progressives didn't like anything that tasked a child's capacity to stretch his thinking. Give him a book he wants to read and that'll be easy for him -- otherwise, he won't read! Science is hard -- history is boring -- make it fun! Facts are out, process is in. Eh.
The children who went to school under that educational philosophy are now our country's teachers.
Thirty years of progressive school of education thinking -- and of conservative refusal to educate at all -- has dumbed down curricula everywhere. As someone who began teaching in the late 1970s and enjoyed working with colleagues, I saw, years later, new teachers coming along who had a hard time constructing a grammatically correct sentence, couldn't figure out who Stalin and Hitler were, and didn't know much about science.
Decades ago, conservatives began infiltrating school boards and school libraries. They banned science books that mentioned dinosaurs in any capacity except that of subverting the truth about the Creation, or didn't specify God's part in the creation of tsunamis; as well as works of literature that dealt with witchcraft (no reading of The Crucible for them!) or showed black people as human (forget Twain's Huckleberry Finn).
And progressives didn't like anything that tasked a child's capacity to stretch his thinking. Give him a book he wants to read and that'll be easy for him -- otherwise, he won't read! Science is hard -- history is boring -- make it fun! Facts are out, process is in. Eh.
The children who went to school under that educational philosophy are now our country's teachers.
12
As an elementary teacher who facilitates a student green team at a Washington Green School that has won a state achievement award for science test scores in the 90th percentile, I have to disagree with B. that this generation of teachers isn't empowering our students in the scientific process. Not only are we teaching that we back up investigations and observations with evidence, but students, even first graders, integrate math to include data in their findings and literacy to support statements with resources. Just observing how much sooner perennials in our school garden are blooming each year and logging temperature trends is evidence that the air is warmer sooner each year. You can hardly teach any core subject without integrating others and, yes, science is a core subject. Sometimes when a person who is even remotely involved in education writes a letter to the editor disparaging teachers, the seeds are planted in readers' minds about our "poor" U.S. education system. I hope I am not the only teacher of science (along with other subjects) who reads this article. The Heartland Institute doesn't have a leg to stand on. Our teachers and students are too science saavy, we are up to the task of resistance, and the The Heartland agenda of climate deniers will fail.
1
Your students are lucky, Green Grandma. I know there are very good science teachers out there -- I've worked with several -- and they were among my favorite colleagues.
Perhaps it was just my last division head who disliked anyone smarter than she, and who made sure she hired teachers who looked up to her. And boy, were they undereducated. It was a misery to sit at a lunch table with some of them.
I do not think I am wrong to say that far too many young teachers are themselves products of educational philosophies, both on the right and on the left, that discourage rigorous scholarship, either because it makes kids ask questions or because it makes some of them feel bad about themselves.
I hope you're right, and that the climate deniers will fail -- but as Susan Jacoby points out in The Age of American Unreason, more Americans believe in ghosts than in the law of gravity.
Perhaps it was just my last division head who disliked anyone smarter than she, and who made sure she hired teachers who looked up to her. And boy, were they undereducated. It was a misery to sit at a lunch table with some of them.
I do not think I am wrong to say that far too many young teachers are themselves products of educational philosophies, both on the right and on the left, that discourage rigorous scholarship, either because it makes kids ask questions or because it makes some of them feel bad about themselves.
I hope you're right, and that the climate deniers will fail -- but as Susan Jacoby points out in The Age of American Unreason, more Americans believe in ghosts than in the law of gravity.
Global warming, "a false premise"? Why is the institute at Paul Smiths, NY called "The Heartland Institute"? - That's a misnomer. That this climate-changing denial group is spraying the landscape with their looney ideas against the global-warming of our planet - sending their "slim, glossy book"- a bouquet of lies - to science educators in America - is outrageous! Their will to teach children and adults lies about why our global climate is NOT changing is an example of how they bury their unintelligent ostrich heads in the sand to deny the reality of our planetary issues with changing climate and man's depredations and the quickening ruination of our planet. We know how propaganda and lies infected societies in the 20th Century. And now it is continuing to infect our American society by denying scientific evidence that our planet is dying.
12
The Heartland Institute is based in Illinois, NOT Paul Smiths, NY.
The dateline of the story is where the author lives and works.
Everything else you say is valid.
The dateline of the story is where the author lives and works.
Everything else you say is valid.
1
NS: 'Why is the institute at Paul Smiths, NY called "The Heartland Institute"? - That's a misnomer.'
You seem to be confused. The Heartland Institute is in Illinois. The author of the OpEd is in New York.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/index.html
You seem to be confused. The Heartland Institute is in Illinois. The author of the OpEd is in New York.
https://www.heartland.org/about-us/index.html
2
And this is why people marched for science last Saturday. Alternative Facts is a threat to our nation and an insult to our intelligence.
28
So I took a quick look at the book, it is available free of charge as a 135 page pdf. It is full of the sort of claims you see on dietary supplements, so called experts who preface every statement with "may" or "I believe", or (in the words of our leader) "eminent people have said" or "I have it on good authority". In other words no evidence that any science was involved. This, coupled with an amazing degree of cherry picking to find anything that even hints of supporting their case (e.g. a journal retracts a paper for whatever reason, with no evidence that the premise or conclusions of the paper were false). I have to wonder if those funding this nonsense have children or grandchildren? Surely propagating such ideas is some form of preemtive child abuse on their (and our) offspring?
19
"It is full of the sort of claims you see on dietary supplements, so called experts who preface every statement with "may" or 'I believe. . ." Isn't that the same rhetorical tactic used on the cable TV program "Ancient Aliens?"
Nothing is new under the Sun: first, it was not allowed to believe that Earth circles the Sun; then, the flat Earth and denial of evolution; now, it is the global warming.
4
If you think smoking might kill you, try not smoking, same goes for CO2 , and quitting us more complicated.
4
False analogy. Smoking has zero utility, but civilization requires energy. We cannot quit using energy, but we can transition to using energy than doesn't release co2.
2
So now the conservatives want tp poison the minds our children. Add that to unmitigated greed, shameless lying, and relentless obfuscation you have a kind of dystopia only portrayed in science fiction.
12
But there's money to be made.
2
Publicly funded religious schools coupled to junk science while ignoring fact based, established and accepted science will lead to a return to Middle Ages.
8
"This latest edition contains a foreword by Marita Noon, described by the book as a columnist for Breitbart and executive director of Energy Makes America Great." That knowledge alone would be enough for every teacher I know to reject this propaganda out of hand.
5
The Heartland Institute has received funding from the DeVos family. Obviously, the Secretary of Education sees no conflict of interest with this.
They left out the chapter on the world being flat, or is that for the next book in the series?
I can see it now: "Children, don't look at the flood outside the window or the tornadoes ripping through your backyards or the marathon drought or, heaven forbid, the man-made earthquake that just shook our foundation. No, it says right here in this pamphlet, pollution has nothing to do with it..."
4
Doubtful that a significant number of those events are manmade. "Man-made earthquakes?" Who's the science denier now?
So why aren't other groups doing mailings to science teachers detailing the truth? They're too busy asking their donors for money and writing website rants.
Have you not read about the national climate change match tomorrow? Should count for something.
1
Maybe they don't have the resources that are available to the oil industry.
1
This Koch-sponsored insanity is destructive; but as one comment points out, it can be made into a useful tool for teaching students how to think critically and evaluate the difference between information and disinformation.
What is arguably much worse for the quality of education in America and the thinking of future voters, are the statewide, political, textbook-commissions which must approve in almost half the states what the textbooks used in public schools can and cannot contain.
Texas is by far the worst of these--requiring, e.g., that textbooks have equal time for evolution deniers. And because of the economics of writing and publishing school textbooks, Texas has an exaggerated influence on what textbook publishers can provide in other states. In 2013, a Pew survey discovered that 33% of Americans do not believe in Evolution.
To see the tip of this iceberg of dumbing-down America's school children, see Gail Collins' 2012 article in the NY Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbo...
What is arguably much worse for the quality of education in America and the thinking of future voters, are the statewide, political, textbook-commissions which must approve in almost half the states what the textbooks used in public schools can and cannot contain.
Texas is by far the worst of these--requiring, e.g., that textbooks have equal time for evolution deniers. And because of the economics of writing and publishing school textbooks, Texas has an exaggerated influence on what textbook publishers can provide in other states. In 2013, a Pew survey discovered that 33% of Americans do not believe in Evolution.
To see the tip of this iceberg of dumbing-down America's school children, see Gail Collins' 2012 article in the NY Review of Books:
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2012/06/21/how-texas-inflicts-bad-textbo...
4
Outrage! But wait: denying climate science and spreading absurdities is—by the way—not limited to fringe groups like the Heartland Institute. This has been the strategy of the Republican party for years. Consciously chosen strategy.
How scary is that?
How scary is that?
10
One of the issues the general public is unaware of and a major reason that teachers unions are a necessity, is the pressure that local school boards, (especially those in small town and rural areas ) can put on teachers. The board members are almost never professional educators, are often scientifically and historically illiterate, and tend to reflect the conservative religious values of the local communities. I will never forget being a first year social studies teacher and basketball coach in rural Ohio, and being called before the school board for a termination hearing, because a small group of conservatives parents said I "defiled the idylls of America" by mentioning the relationship between Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson. Nothing I said about the historical accuracy of my statement mattered. It was frightening. I survived by a 3-2 vote, solely because my J.V. basketball team went 17-1. Teachers in conservative communities will be pressured on global warming, they need to be aggressively protected.
7
Should people be able to spread dangerous opinions as fact?
The alternate fact thing was here before Trump. (see weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) It is really very serious and does not just occur from the Republican right.
Free speech is one thing and spreading lies is another. How to set this and determine this is like the Monty Python Argument Clinic comedy sketch. Whatever rational line of reasoning is proposed just say "no it isn't".
We now have a President and political party that thinks letting mentally ill people go get guns legally is OK. The Trump and Republican thing is irrational and dangerous. All Republicans should go to Iraq, not spread lies to school teachers here..go bother someone else.
The alternate fact thing was here before Trump. (see weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) It is really very serious and does not just occur from the Republican right.
Free speech is one thing and spreading lies is another. How to set this and determine this is like the Monty Python Argument Clinic comedy sketch. Whatever rational line of reasoning is proposed just say "no it isn't".
We now have a President and political party that thinks letting mentally ill people go get guns legally is OK. The Trump and Republican thing is irrational and dangerous. All Republicans should go to Iraq, not spread lies to school teachers here..go bother someone else.
1
Nine out of ten scientists the world over are on board. If this were a vast conspiracy, it would be the most astonishingly effective one in the history of humankind...and to what end? In a world DEFINED by vehement and violent disagreement on just about everything, exaggerating the threat of global warming is the lone objective on which people of all stripes can clandestinely arrive at a consensus...? God help us.
2
Maybe a good teachable moment:
Science is not supposed to have an agenda. If Heartland Institute is interested in science why do they care so much whether human activity has caused the changes in the climate?
Maybe a good weekend research assignment for middle schoolers.
Science is not supposed to have an agenda. If Heartland Institute is interested in science why do they care so much whether human activity has caused the changes in the climate?
Maybe a good weekend research assignment for middle schoolers.
3
It is rightly called sabotage!
Destroying young minds to destroy the environment.
What a worthy goal.
Destroying young minds to destroy the environment.
What a worthy goal.
4
No worries there are plenty of other countries that take science education seriously. We can get our next generation of scientists from Asia.
1
Good grief! Things feel more and more like de ja vu from my Hasidic upbringing, where any instance of "millions of years" in our textbooks was blacked out, and many pages ripped out. (It took my Americanized son to tell me how embarrassing it is that I conflate dragons and dinosaurs.)
The thing that perplexes me so much is how we have come to the same place with such vastly different mechanisms. In my ultra conservative sect it was clear why we believed the most ridiculous ideas - they were after all the only ideas available to us. But how did we get to the same place in America, where all the scientific facts are open for all to see? 35 percent of teachers - I am sure almost all have access to endless libraries! How is it people end up just as ignorant with infinite information as with none? I'm so perplexed!
The thing that perplexes me so much is how we have come to the same place with such vastly different mechanisms. In my ultra conservative sect it was clear why we believed the most ridiculous ideas - they were after all the only ideas available to us. But how did we get to the same place in America, where all the scientific facts are open for all to see? 35 percent of teachers - I am sure almost all have access to endless libraries! How is it people end up just as ignorant with infinite information as with none? I'm so perplexed!
6
People are too busy following the lives of the Kardashians to read about science. "It's hard! "
2
Real science doesn't rely on tallying the percentage of publishing scientists who agree or disagree with a scientific claim. Anyone familiar with academic publishing knows that to do research you need funding and to get funding you usually, or almost always, have to go with the dominant paradigm. Once you've got your findings, getting it published is inevitable, since the peer reviewers depend on the same system. And they all dine at the same banquet table. This is self-confirming institutional science. To call people who see problems with the dominant claim "deniers" is fundamentally illiberal. Science is not a faith beset by "deniers" and "doubters." Unsurprisingly, one commenter wanted to have passing dogs urinate on these books. Why not come out and recommend burning them? And rounding up the doubters and deniers?
The human caused global warming claim may be true. But the culture of intimidation it has spawned is anti-scientific and an insult to the great heroes of science--Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin--who were each in their time doubters and deniers who were proven to be right in the end.
The human caused global warming claim may be true. But the culture of intimidation it has spawned is anti-scientific and an insult to the great heroes of science--Copernicus, Galileo, Darwin--who were each in their time doubters and deniers who were proven to be right in the end.
6
You clearly have bought into the "scientists are in a conspiracy" belief, and have no idea how scientific research actually works.
Pointing out what you believe to be a flaw in our system of science funding is completely besides the point. It says nothing about the issue of climate change. Copernicus' earth centric solar system may have met with initial doubt, but became mainstream as the evidence mounted. Likewise, 40 years ago climate change was doubted by a great many scientists, but since then the accumulation of evidence has become so overwhelming that you have to be blind, or an utter fool, to pretend it's not real.
Did you notice the Nature article reported everywhere yesterday about the scientists who claim that humans made it to the Americas 130k years ago? You do realize the idea flies in the face of the current paradigm, right? Yet somehow they got funding AND their peer-reviewed article made it to Nature. I think you just put a nice strawman in words.
I'm reminded of the 1987 Schoharie bridge collapse, in which people who recognized the bridge was out were trying to stop the traffic on the Thruway. A white cadillac with several men went speeding by, giving the finger to the warning parties -- and then shot off the bridge into the roiling river. That's where we're headed.
8
This is a great analogy.
3
“If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.” --- David Hume
Although today I would simply suggest recycling.
Although today I would simply suggest recycling.
1
Social studies teachers used to receive similar "misdirection" propaganda brochures from the Saudi government back in the 1970's and early '80's! Glossy junk-mail extolling the progress of the Kingdom regularly arrived in school mail boxes! Good for laughs for anyone except the ill-informed and and intellectually under-powered!
Similar campaigns pop up periodically, funded by the usual right-wing tricksters. This time, the fossil-fuel industry is attempting to undermine the national consensus about climate change, in the face of growing empirical evidence concerning temperature changes, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and increased atmospheric carbon-dioxide readings.
Luckily this campaign will probably backfire just as the PR attempt to convince smokers tobacco really didn't cause cancer and heart disease. In the end, that misbegotten effort hastened the shutdown of cigarette advertizing, passage of heavy taxes on tobacco products and plummeting rates of smoking.
"Misdirection" works well on the pro-football gridiron, but not usually with well-informed college-educated professionals. Spend your money more wisely, fossil-fuelers, say by helping alleviate the damages inflicted on poor folks in Oklahoma, hit by man-made earthquakes resulting from drilling operations no less!
Similar campaigns pop up periodically, funded by the usual right-wing tricksters. This time, the fossil-fuel industry is attempting to undermine the national consensus about climate change, in the face of growing empirical evidence concerning temperature changes, retreating glaciers, rising sea levels and increased atmospheric carbon-dioxide readings.
Luckily this campaign will probably backfire just as the PR attempt to convince smokers tobacco really didn't cause cancer and heart disease. In the end, that misbegotten effort hastened the shutdown of cigarette advertizing, passage of heavy taxes on tobacco products and plummeting rates of smoking.
"Misdirection" works well on the pro-football gridiron, but not usually with well-informed college-educated professionals. Spend your money more wisely, fossil-fuelers, say by helping alleviate the damages inflicted on poor folks in Oklahoma, hit by man-made earthquakes resulting from drilling operations no less!
The Heartland Institute is another Koch Industries funded "think tank" designed to spread dangerous misinformation about climate change through academia. The real facts about climate change threaten and endanger Koch Industries and they can't let that happen.
3
The teachers susceptible to fake science news would be those with not enough science training. And the same goes for the public at large.
1
A graduate level colleague did not understand Global Warming either. She is bright. I was disturbed and surprised. In her won defense she said it was another area of expertise. don't they teach critical thought in college anymore?
2
I wonder the same thing about the education of some people I know who should know better.
1
Hopefully teachers, students, and parents are smart enough to not be swayed by such propaganda... but after the election of Trump and the continued support of him by most who voted for him, I have little hope for the collective intelligence of our nation.
2
It is astonishing to me that this great nation wastes so much time and energy and money on issues that the rest of the world does not think twice about.
Such is the level of consensus on climate change there is a proposal to name the epoch starting around 1950 as the Anthropocene Era to reflect the overwhelming impact that human beings are making on the Earth's geology and ecosystems.
So let's stop being mealy mouthed about climate change, accept it as a fact and come to terms with it. And ignore the tiny minority of outliers like the Heartland Institute.
Such is the level of consensus on climate change there is a proposal to name the epoch starting around 1950 as the Anthropocene Era to reflect the overwhelming impact that human beings are making on the Earth's geology and ecosystems.
So let's stop being mealy mouthed about climate change, accept it as a fact and come to terms with it. And ignore the tiny minority of outliers like the Heartland Institute.
climate change sounds like more rain to many. climate change sounds like an issue that if we throw enough LOUD money at it it will just go away. Climate Change is just another way of saying Human Extinction. why cannot that connection be made. Sounds like commonsense. oh wait that's why, nevermind.
1
"A conservative think tank known for attacking climate science".
In other words, a "conservative think tank" - which one would consider an oxymoron- is in fact a group with only one mission: destroy.
But, unfortunately, I fear the misleading of America's youth won't go very far...
The rate at which weather patterns are changing, will make it quite obvious that we're not in the same world in which we grew up.
Hope for them it's not too late.
In other words, a "conservative think tank" - which one would consider an oxymoron- is in fact a group with only one mission: destroy.
But, unfortunately, I fear the misleading of America's youth won't go very far...
The rate at which weather patterns are changing, will make it quite obvious that we're not in the same world in which we grew up.
Hope for them it's not too late.
I'm a teacher and have good news. Most school teachers are smart and were exposed to science classes while in college. It doesn't hurt to have the physics, chemistry and biology teachers down the hall. The cynical folks at the Heartland Institute are nowhere near as smart as they think they are. I'd flunk them for doing no serious research on their audience.
2
The institute has the free speech right to distribute this information, as wrong and as biased as it may be. The reason they can distribute it so widely is that they have financial backing from the fossil fuel industry. A half a million dollars or so may not seem like big bucks in the realms of issue politics, but generally its represents a substantial grant for an individual scientist or a working group.
This illustrates why money should not equal speech. If the climate change deniers had to compete in the real world of science, they would get nowhere. Unfettered money thrown at bad ideas allows them to flourish.
The same is true in politics. Big money wants big results. Big results requires big lies. Thus, the logic of of politics (such as it exists) tells us that big money equals big lies.
This illustrates why money should not equal speech. If the climate change deniers had to compete in the real world of science, they would get nowhere. Unfettered money thrown at bad ideas allows them to flourish.
The same is true in politics. Big money wants big results. Big results requires big lies. Thus, the logic of of politics (such as it exists) tells us that big money equals big lies.
1
While I accept man-made global warming is undeniable, it is also undeniable there is an hysteria surrounding it. At the first Earth Day in 1970, the premise of the speeches was a future world wide famine. Every speaker, the most prominent of their day, predicted 2 million people would die per day by the mid-1980s due to famines throughout the world, including the U.S..
As it turns out this country produces much more food, with fewer farmers and less land under cultivation, then we can eat. 40% of food the average American buys winds up in the garbage uneaten. There is hunger and malnutrition in this country and around the world but this is due to supply and distribution not lack of food. And those countries predicted in 1970 to have existential famines, like India, are in fact today economic engines with rising standards of living. Remember this was the "overwhelming consensus" of the most prominent scientists of the time and they were completely wrong. Not that any of them ever admitted it.
There is nothing wrong with teachers pointing out past hysterias. There is nothing illegitimate about educating students that scientists are human beings whose opinions are invariably colored by their own worldview. Those prominent scientists who disagree should be given equal time.
This is called intellectual discourse, what this editorial is proposing is called restricting free speech.
As it turns out this country produces much more food, with fewer farmers and less land under cultivation, then we can eat. 40% of food the average American buys winds up in the garbage uneaten. There is hunger and malnutrition in this country and around the world but this is due to supply and distribution not lack of food. And those countries predicted in 1970 to have existential famines, like India, are in fact today economic engines with rising standards of living. Remember this was the "overwhelming consensus" of the most prominent scientists of the time and they were completely wrong. Not that any of them ever admitted it.
There is nothing wrong with teachers pointing out past hysterias. There is nothing illegitimate about educating students that scientists are human beings whose opinions are invariably colored by their own worldview. Those prominent scientists who disagree should be given equal time.
This is called intellectual discourse, what this editorial is proposing is called restricting free speech.
2
I think a great term project for the science teachers who have this book would be to assign their students portions of their choosing to write papers -- or, better, build projects -- that discredit every last piece of nonsense in its pages.
And every project, from every corner of the country, should be put on an instructional DVD and sent to the Heartland Institute.
I'd love to see the wonderful things the kids and their smart teachers would come up with.
And every project, from every corner of the country, should be put on an instructional DVD and sent to the Heartland Institute.
I'd love to see the wonderful things the kids and their smart teachers would come up with.
Lets say climate change is fake, yet the people believe it and start to invest in solar panels, enact a carbon tax, demand more fuel efficient cars, less development of public lands, less coal fired power plants what would our world look like in 10, 20 or 50 years?
Lets say climate change is real, yet the people do not believe in it and do nothing about it. Instead we build more gas guzzlers, mine more coal, develop our national parks to build condos, shopping malls and homes. Increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, increase warming to the point of no return... Venus might be a good case study.
What have we got to lose if climate change is fake and do something, vs. its real and do nothing? I rather be without a job and healthy than with a job and dying.
Lets say climate change is real, yet the people do not believe in it and do nothing about it. Instead we build more gas guzzlers, mine more coal, develop our national parks to build condos, shopping malls and homes. Increase the amount of carbon in the atmosphere, increase warming to the point of no return... Venus might be a good case study.
What have we got to lose if climate change is fake and do something, vs. its real and do nothing? I rather be without a job and healthy than with a job and dying.
1
I would like to understand why there is apparently so much more money on the religious right than on the pro-science side. Even if you argue that the right has corporate interests, I bet there are business opportunities to be found that aren't totally unreasonable - and more profitable in the long run. What gives the irrational convictions of so many very rich? Is our culture somehow culpable in giving rise to nutjobs, and if so, what can we do about it?
1
"I would like to understand why there is apparently so much more money on the religious right than on the pro-science side."...The prescience side spends their money on research and advancing human knowledge so that we can better solve problems.
SCIENTISTS DISAGREE ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE? Like it or not, it's an accurate observation. Because maybe something like 1 to 3% of scientists disagree about global climate change. The findings of science are not determined by popular vote, but rather by reviewing the data. If we wait until we can get 100% agreement about anything taught to kids, we'll never teach them anything. If, indeed, some facts about climate change are inaccurate, they can either be eliminated or change. That's how science works. Let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater, nor throw the education of our kids into the garbage because the crackpots that brought us never ending debates about Evolution are getting their claws into the Next Big Thing. What will they call their movement? The fight against the renegade iceburgs. Trying to sabotage the GOPpers' political beliefs. Par for the course. Ignorant is as ignorant does. Go GOPpers.
There were similar detractors from the view that CFCs were connected to ozone holes. And President Reagan simply dismissed them because the scientists might be right and the risk of ignoring that was just too great.
1
Spreading doubt about climate change among teachers isn't new. The fossil fuel industry figured out a decade ago that although corporate logos were suspect, forming partnerships with education non-profits , deemed more credible to educators was a more effective way to get their message out. A good example of this is a children's book titled "The Sky’s Not Falling! Why It’s OK to Chill about Global Warming" by Holly Fretwell, an author affiliated with a non-profit think tank called the Property and Environment Research Center . The book recycles many of the arguments against human caused global warming that have repeatedly been refuted by climate scientists. Copies donated by a parent who was an employee of Exxon were distributed to every 6th grade classroom in my school district after our district Science Director had a group of teachers review the book and found it "balanced", even though it begins by essentially calling anyone who believes in the human causes of global warming and the urgency of curbing CO₂ emissions a "Chicken Little". Thirteen of the references listed in the bibliography of are scientists affiliated with the Heartland Institute. Doubt is an easy product to sell.
3
Professor Stager is missing a fundamental point. The First Amendment protects the Heartland Institute's right to produce (within reason) what it wishes. If no one reads this book, then there isn't any perceived adverse impact.
The reality is we are tying ourselves up in knots over Climate Change/Global Warming. We are transitioning, based on market conditions, to renewable sources of energy and we will continue to do so based on how quickly the economies of scale in engineering them will allow.
The reality is we are tying ourselves up in knots over Climate Change/Global Warming. We are transitioning, based on market conditions, to renewable sources of energy and we will continue to do so based on how quickly the economies of scale in engineering them will allow.
Public schools most often reflect the communities in which they are in. They hire administrators who then hire staff. The board of education, elected by the community, then provides the seal of approval. Teachers whose philosophies differ from the community either they get hired and if they do, they are not given tenure. Life for tenured teachers could be made very difficult, so that they leave on their own. As one of my teaching associates once said, "Stay out of those caveman districts!"
It sounds like the scientific community will have to find a way to counter this with brochures explaining their findings. That means mailing a copy to all the various educators noted in the article.
"Outdated ideas" is an odd phrase indeed coming from a scientist.
Without skepticism, there can be no science, only faith.
The settled-science folks who warned us the ice caps would be gone by 2012 may have been more accurate had they been more scientifically skeptical.
Without skepticism, there can be no science, only faith.
The settled-science folks who warned us the ice caps would be gone by 2012 may have been more accurate had they been more scientifically skeptical.
3
Can't wait for Trump, through an executive order, to require the ACT/SAT corporations to include questions on the wrong assumptions of climate science.
1
Just curious. Where does anyone get a mailing list of all the science teachers in the US?
There is no central organization, union, etc. Nothing on a tax form. Maybe individual states keep track of names and addresses, but I doubt it, and how would the Heartland Institute obtain them?
The National Science Teachers Association (voluntary membership of 50K) estimates that there are about 2 M science teachers in the US if you count elementary school teachers (1.6 M) who also teach science.
Professor Stager should have explored these basic facts more carefully, since his article seems to be off by a magnitude of 10.
There is no central organization, union, etc. Nothing on a tax form. Maybe individual states keep track of names and addresses, but I doubt it, and how would the Heartland Institute obtain them?
The National Science Teachers Association (voluntary membership of 50K) estimates that there are about 2 M science teachers in the US if you count elementary school teachers (1.6 M) who also teach science.
Professor Stager should have explored these basic facts more carefully, since his article seems to be off by a magnitude of 10.
SL: "Where does anyone get a mailing list of all the science teachers in the US?"
There are companies that specialize in compiling "targeted mailing lists". Google for more.
There are companies that specialize in compiling "targeted mailing lists". Google for more.
1
I grew up in a household of scientists. My first degree was in Biology & have worked in teaching, basic research & clinical trials. Therefore, it is hard for me to comprehend on what basis -if any- one can argue that climate change is not mostly caused by human activity.
However in teaching, I have used such 'propaganda' textbooks to show them how logic & the scientific method can shield them from prejudice & manipulation anytime.
It pays explaining in class how through observation we ask research questions, formulate hypotheses, test those by trial, error (experimentation), how we avoid bias, how peer-reviewed publication strengthens credibility in scientific findings & provides a stepping stone for the next researcher to build on our findings.
It's also important to stress to students that we absolutely start with the question & we only formulate a conclusion when it is based on what we have measured in our findings. We cannot do the reverse, i.e. have a partisan hypothesis, then seek to make up evidence to back it.
Finally, the most difficult part is explaining that human activity leads to a domino of interlinked impacts, of which climate change is only a part triggering other processes harmful to living organisms/planet & promote disease, or may destroy crops.
Why oppose the well documented fact that climate change is mostly caused by human activity? Because it serves powerful interests e.g. selling fossil fuels & weakens their competition in clean energy.
However in teaching, I have used such 'propaganda' textbooks to show them how logic & the scientific method can shield them from prejudice & manipulation anytime.
It pays explaining in class how through observation we ask research questions, formulate hypotheses, test those by trial, error (experimentation), how we avoid bias, how peer-reviewed publication strengthens credibility in scientific findings & provides a stepping stone for the next researcher to build on our findings.
It's also important to stress to students that we absolutely start with the question & we only formulate a conclusion when it is based on what we have measured in our findings. We cannot do the reverse, i.e. have a partisan hypothesis, then seek to make up evidence to back it.
Finally, the most difficult part is explaining that human activity leads to a domino of interlinked impacts, of which climate change is only a part triggering other processes harmful to living organisms/planet & promote disease, or may destroy crops.
Why oppose the well documented fact that climate change is mostly caused by human activity? Because it serves powerful interests e.g. selling fossil fuels & weakens their competition in clean energy.
1
Most of the General Public accepts that the Climate is changing. Climate scientists have been pretty good of tracing these changes to the causes. But accepting that a gigantic change in the energy industry and transportation industry involving job losses and increased consumer costs must take place in order to counterbalance our changing climate cannot be easily done by the General Public.
People can accept the facts intellectually but choose to ignore the real life outcomes of our climate policies. And of course the "Alternative Facts" put out by corporations and investors who have much to lose gives solace to people whose livelihood or standard of living would be adversely affected.
Not until climate change has a significant effect on a majority of people in this country (and elsewhere) will people finally accept the reality of the situation.
By then it may be too late.
People can accept the facts intellectually but choose to ignore the real life outcomes of our climate policies. And of course the "Alternative Facts" put out by corporations and investors who have much to lose gives solace to people whose livelihood or standard of living would be adversely affected.
Not until climate change has a significant effect on a majority of people in this country (and elsewhere) will people finally accept the reality of the situation.
By then it may be too late.
1
Like Ronald Reagan, George Bush and now the current administration, have used the administrative powers of the presidency to advance an antiregulatory pro-business agenda .They have exercised the powers of appointment, budget, regulatory oversight and rulemaking to alter the direction of existing regulatory policies .But now something even darker is happening.... "political science" is now sending "environment-friendly books" lying to both students and teachers,
The conversion of science into policy is seldom a smooth process, particularly IF scientific consensus is tentative -and therefore fragile and the economic implications of that fledgling consensus are inimical to the interest of powerful stakeholders.
EPA is now in danger so schools are, politicians do not care but just in lobbying and making more assets ...Have taught in different universities in South America for 20 years and 5 years ago I was so lucky and blessed to have worked as a science teacher in California in the most beautiful and amazing country in the world .but now I feel frustrated and sad for these decisions being made
The conversion of science into policy is seldom a smooth process, particularly IF scientific consensus is tentative -and therefore fragile and the economic implications of that fledgling consensus are inimical to the interest of powerful stakeholders.
EPA is now in danger so schools are, politicians do not care but just in lobbying and making more assets ...Have taught in different universities in South America for 20 years and 5 years ago I was so lucky and blessed to have worked as a science teacher in California in the most beautiful and amazing country in the world .but now I feel frustrated and sad for these decisions being made
Very upsetting, especially considering that those schoolchildren in Louisiana will be at the forefront for having their lives destroyed by Climate Change once more ice melts. Hopefully the vast majority of those who devote their careers to teaching kids how to think use that skill when they receive this scam of a book in the mail.
Why deny science? Every once in awhile, I get a glimpse of how it must feel to be an adult who considers science a threat. Some intense childhood memory, or the ending of a good post-apocalyptic novel will recall a feeling of simple co-existence with nature; of blind, mythological trust in creation. I grew up loving science, yet I can remember the intimidating feeling that elementary science class used to evoke, of breaking up the world into rules, structures, and formulas that required doing homework, and turned our back yard from playground into laboratory.
By manipulating nature we HAVE lost a certain naive trust in it, yet even deniers of science take its gifts for granted. The emergence of scientific understanding has changed the world so completely that even if we could walk away from it, it would mean walking away from civilization as we know it, and the abandonment of a huge percentage of humanity that now relies on science for survival.
Yes, science overreaches sometimes, but usually in the quest to save or improve lives by growing more food, building more homes, or finding new cures. Does science contribute to global warming? ...only by enabling more people to stay alive, even as we continue to procreate to much, too fast.
Why deny science? Why would anyone actually want to go back to that childishly naive trust in nature by suppressing and misrepresenting our capacity to understand and utilize creation? ...unless it be to stop improving and saving lives.
By manipulating nature we HAVE lost a certain naive trust in it, yet even deniers of science take its gifts for granted. The emergence of scientific understanding has changed the world so completely that even if we could walk away from it, it would mean walking away from civilization as we know it, and the abandonment of a huge percentage of humanity that now relies on science for survival.
Yes, science overreaches sometimes, but usually in the quest to save or improve lives by growing more food, building more homes, or finding new cures. Does science contribute to global warming? ...only by enabling more people to stay alive, even as we continue to procreate to much, too fast.
Why deny science? Why would anyone actually want to go back to that childishly naive trust in nature by suppressing and misrepresenting our capacity to understand and utilize creation? ...unless it be to stop improving and saving lives.
I'm a retired teacher, and I can tell you that about 20 percent of the science staff where I worked did not believe changes in the climate could be brought about by humans.
The we're both conservative Republicans. Enought said.
The we're both conservative Republicans. Enought said.
2
The espoused aim of the Heartland Institute is to discredit global warming by spreading a conspiracy theory about science and scientists. Clearly, the spreading of the conspiracy theory is more central to their objectives than this particular instance.
If the answer chosen to prevent such disinformation campaigns is to put organizations like the Heartland Institute out of business, it will become a long campaign because the Institute will be reborn under various guises again and again. To prevent that, the funding behind the Institute will have to be uncovered and cut off.
In this instance, probably only some demented billionaire will be disconcerted if the disinformation is prevented. But the more ominous possibility is that the mechanisms developed and presumably supported by the courts to thwart cranks then will be available to the Trump administration to apply censorship where it pleases them. I doubt America is prepared for such empowerment of the purveyors of alternative facts.
The issues raised by the funding of disinformation, whether by demented groups or individuals, are not simply resolved.
If the answer chosen to prevent such disinformation campaigns is to put organizations like the Heartland Institute out of business, it will become a long campaign because the Institute will be reborn under various guises again and again. To prevent that, the funding behind the Institute will have to be uncovered and cut off.
In this instance, probably only some demented billionaire will be disconcerted if the disinformation is prevented. But the more ominous possibility is that the mechanisms developed and presumably supported by the courts to thwart cranks then will be available to the Trump administration to apply censorship where it pleases them. I doubt America is prepared for such empowerment of the purveyors of alternative facts.
The issues raised by the funding of disinformation, whether by demented groups or individuals, are not simply resolved.
1
Anyone who would believe this anti-Climate Change propaganda has no business being a science teacher.
If as the article states 30 percent of the teachers believe current climate change is due to "Natural Causes" , that reflects very badly on the quality of teacher training and continuing education.
Science teachers must band together to fight this mis-information.
If as the article states 30 percent of the teachers believe current climate change is due to "Natural Causes" , that reflects very badly on the quality of teacher training and continuing education.
Science teachers must band together to fight this mis-information.
1
It's not just among schoolteachers that books like these sow doubt. They do so for the public as well. There is an assumption made, which is correct, that the American public is quite ignorant on how science works, how it proves hypotheses, tests to disprove them, what controls are, and why a scientist never says that any event or theory is 100% true. The reason Americans are so easy to lie to is because they assume, wrongly, that science is too difficult to comprehend. On a basic level it's not. If our schools did a better job teaching science in grades K-12, and our colleges performed likewise, we'd have a more science literate public which could then see some of these "experts" for what they are.
There is another point to be made here as well. Just because some politicians and their supporters don't want to acknowledge climate change doesn't mean that steps should not be taken to mitigate the effects of eroding coastlines, shifting breadbaskets in countries, droughts, etc. Funding efforts like this provides jobs, draws on human ingenuity to solve the problem(s), and may even prevent a few wars.
There is another point to be made here as well. Just because some politicians and their supporters don't want to acknowledge climate change doesn't mean that steps should not be taken to mitigate the effects of eroding coastlines, shifting breadbaskets in countries, droughts, etc. Funding efforts like this provides jobs, draws on human ingenuity to solve the problem(s), and may even prevent a few wars.
9
Science teaching, at least in some parts of the country, evidently lacks a content mastery requirement. This is not so suprising, given that 46% of Americans believe the Earth is less than 10,000 years old (Gallup)..
This requires the belief that God made those core samples of earlier atmospheres, all of those fossils, geology and DNA to test our faith.
But he also made all of those fossil fuels and our job is to dig them out of the ground as fast as possible to hasten the end of the world. And that is what your President and EPA Administrator believe, based on their actions.
This requires the belief that God made those core samples of earlier atmospheres, all of those fossils, geology and DNA to test our faith.
But he also made all of those fossil fuels and our job is to dig them out of the ground as fast as possible to hasten the end of the world. And that is what your President and EPA Administrator believe, based on their actions.
17
The Heartland Institute is a right-wing propaganda mill.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with tobacco company Philip Morris to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans...nice people.
The scientific journal NATURE pointed out the group's lack of credibility and raison d'etre in 2011:
"The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted Heartland President/CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility:
"this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
The Heartland Institute is little more than another Republican Death Panel, working overtime to kill Americans through profound ignorance, cultured stupidity and Greed Over People.
In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with tobacco company Philip Morris to deny the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans...nice people.
The scientific journal NATURE pointed out the group's lack of credibility and raison d'etre in 2011:
"The Heartland Institute and its ilk are not trying to build a theory of anything. They have set the bar much lower, and are happy muddying the waters."
An August 2014 Travis County Texas court ruling highlighted Heartland President/CEO Joseph Bast's lack of credibility:
"this Court finds that Mr. Bast is not a credible witness and that he did not offer reliable opinions in this matter. While Mr. Bast described himself as an economist, he holds neither undergraduate nor graduate degrees in economics, and the highest level of education he completed was high school. Mr. Bast testified that he is 100% committed to the long-term goal of getting government out of the business of educating its own voting citizens. Further, his use of inflammatory and irresponsible language regarding global warming, and his admission that the long term goal of his advocacy of vouchers is to dismantle the “socialist” public education system further undermine his credibility with this Court."
The Heartland Institute is little more than another Republican Death Panel, working overtime to kill Americans through profound ignorance, cultured stupidity and Greed Over People.
362
Thank you for this vital information.
2
More dumbing down of American students, more reliance on belief over facts. This is a form of control, similar to the Church's control over the European populations in the middle ages by denying them education or the ability to read and think for themselves-though the printing press helped end that. The Education Department under DeVos seems to want to take a similar turn at pushing people to "believe" and deny factual information. We are devolving quickly.
39
It seems to me that there are two strains of thought "fueling" the viable, anti-scientific theory that human activities are the primary cause of global warming. As far as politics is concerned, it is really not "thought" at all, but the reality that the energy lobby pads the pockets of so many of our politicians. They are not going to admit that it is our reliance on fossil fuels that is causing global warming. But the thought that climate change is largely a natural phenomenon, which, as this article points out is insidiously working its way into our public school system, is based in our self-indulgent society and our unwillingness to change our lifestyles. Our roads are filled with trucks and SUV's that guzzle fuel. And our government is not setting a good example for us by deregulating the automobile industry. In doing so, it is expressing its disdain for the science of climate change. After all, it's not really our fault; it's just nature's way.
The Obama administration was on the right path in helping solar and wind power businesses to get off the ground. I am sure that this practice will also be imperiled by the anti-science Trump administration.
We should follow India's example as they strive to make the daunting transition from Big Coal to sustainable energy. Like them, we need to stop blaming the earth and start taking responsibility for the earth upon ourselves, for the sake of our future, and for the generations that come after us.
The Obama administration was on the right path in helping solar and wind power businesses to get off the ground. I am sure that this practice will also be imperiled by the anti-science Trump administration.
We should follow India's example as they strive to make the daunting transition from Big Coal to sustainable energy. Like them, we need to stop blaming the earth and start taking responsibility for the earth upon ourselves, for the sake of our future, and for the generations that come after us.
8
It is shocking tha 30% of science teachers have not kept up with advances in science and still teach that global warming is due to natural causes.
This speaks to the need for better accreditation of science teachers, possibly requiring rigorous continuing education and, like their students, frequent testing to ensure that science teachers are up to date on current scientific consensus and research.
This speaks to the need for better accreditation of science teachers, possibly requiring rigorous continuing education and, like their students, frequent testing to ensure that science teachers are up to date on current scientific consensus and research.
19
Science teachers do need rigorous continuing education. Unfortunately, grants have ended for some of the excellent programs NOAA funded. Decades ago, the fossil fuel industry came up with the cynical idea of funding workshops for underpaid teachers in nice places with lots of free curriculum materials.
The controversy over the Heartland Institute's booklet illustrates a dilemma faced by teachers, especially on the pre-collegiate level. Few have the training to qualify as experts in the subject matter they teach. Many instructors also face the requirement of multiple preparations, which limits the time they can spend improving their knowledge of any particular topic, even one as important as climate change. This reality renders them vulnerable to biased publications, especially when the authors clothe their bogus arguments in the language of science. Thus, the writers dismiss Darwinian evolution as a "theory," misusing the word to mean "hypothesis," rather than a fully developed and empirically verified explanation of the origins of life.
Those teachers who conceive of education as a lifelong process, not an achievement sanctioned by a college diploma, tend to develop an immunity to propaganda in the style of the Institute's booklet. They can follow reader Susan Harari's excellent idea and use such materials to teach critical thinking skills. Unhappily, the figures cited by Professor Stager suggest that teacher training has not improved enough since I endured the process a half century ago.
In my own teaching field, history, moreover, many instructors double as coaches, which further limits the time, and often the interest, they have to continue their own education. The problem Stager describes transcends the proper teaching of one topic.
Those teachers who conceive of education as a lifelong process, not an achievement sanctioned by a college diploma, tend to develop an immunity to propaganda in the style of the Institute's booklet. They can follow reader Susan Harari's excellent idea and use such materials to teach critical thinking skills. Unhappily, the figures cited by Professor Stager suggest that teacher training has not improved enough since I endured the process a half century ago.
In my own teaching field, history, moreover, many instructors double as coaches, which further limits the time, and often the interest, they have to continue their own education. The problem Stager describes transcends the proper teaching of one topic.
28
Like you, I also teach Social Science topics. My degrees are all Science degrees.
For two years my Grand-kid's science teacher in New Mexico, (a Creation Science bastion), refused to teach the theory of evolution because it had too many "ifs".
My question to him was, "How can you be a science teacher and know so little about science?"
He also used the word theory when he should have used hypothesis.
For two years my Grand-kid's science teacher in New Mexico, (a Creation Science bastion), refused to teach the theory of evolution because it had too many "ifs".
My question to him was, "How can you be a science teacher and know so little about science?"
He also used the word theory when he should have used hypothesis.
3
Every article like this should contain a 'disclosure' statement about who funded the 'research'.
The funding comes from the fossil fuel industry and its allies, such as in the Koch network who don't want a federal government strong enough to reduce their degrees of freedom.
The fossil fuel industry is in danger of having stranded assets -- that is, being totally worthless -- if the public believes we are polluting our planet with the product they sell and switches wholesale to safer energy sources. There is plenty of evidence that this industry is behind these false science claims. They use the same methods as the tobacco deniers They use the same methods to promote 'voodoo economics' which has led the US to as big an income inequality favoring the oligarchs as exists now in developing countries.
The funding comes from the fossil fuel industry and its allies, such as in the Koch network who don't want a federal government strong enough to reduce their degrees of freedom.
The fossil fuel industry is in danger of having stranded assets -- that is, being totally worthless -- if the public believes we are polluting our planet with the product they sell and switches wholesale to safer energy sources. There is plenty of evidence that this industry is behind these false science claims. They use the same methods as the tobacco deniers They use the same methods to promote 'voodoo economics' which has led the US to as big an income inequality favoring the oligarchs as exists now in developing countries.
31
One scientific proposition that has been advanced is that, from time to time, science gets it wrong.
Though of course, this proposition too could be wrong.
Being exposed to "wrong" ideas is not the problem, as the author suggests. It's being close-minded to the possibility that one's own position might be open to improvement.
It also closes the mind to the repercussions of "climate change" reaction - even if it is right. Do we restrict all human activity for its possible impact on the climate. Should only celebrities like Leonardo Decaprio be allowed to use yachts and private jets - due to their entitlement being higher than the average person? Should all NASCAR races be limited to 4-cylinder engines? Should college professors be required to work in non-air-conditioned offices, in order to save energy?
Should there be population control? Should electricity consumption be governed by a quota?
Many restrictions can be justified by the concept of climate change. The author of this article does not address any of the real fundamental issues.
Though of course, this proposition too could be wrong.
Being exposed to "wrong" ideas is not the problem, as the author suggests. It's being close-minded to the possibility that one's own position might be open to improvement.
It also closes the mind to the repercussions of "climate change" reaction - even if it is right. Do we restrict all human activity for its possible impact on the climate. Should only celebrities like Leonardo Decaprio be allowed to use yachts and private jets - due to their entitlement being higher than the average person? Should all NASCAR races be limited to 4-cylinder engines? Should college professors be required to work in non-air-conditioned offices, in order to save energy?
Should there be population control? Should electricity consumption be governed by a quota?
Many restrictions can be justified by the concept of climate change. The author of this article does not address any of the real fundamental issues.
10
"Being exposed to "wrong" ideas is not the problem, as the author suggests. It's being close-minded to the possibility that one's own position might be open to improvement."
Being open to improvement is the ground-basis of scientific research, and is the work of mature, experienced and honest minds.
Exposing our schools' young mind to equivocal propaganda concocted by weasels on the take is the problem.
Being open to improvement is the ground-basis of scientific research, and is the work of mature, experienced and honest minds.
Exposing our schools' young mind to equivocal propaganda concocted by weasels on the take is the problem.
FYI, only the rich and celebrity class can currently ride around on yachts and private jets.
Climate change is a scientific phenomenon. The things you mentioned are related to what our response to it should be. The author was correct about making the science clear, and not muddying the waters by discussing politics. You seem to suggest that because some people like you may suggest draconian measures to deal with climate change, we should be more willing to deny that humans are causing it. No, let us be clear about the science and only debate how best to combat it.
1
The most striking concern here is that a majority of science teachers k-12 are not equipped to explain the issues associated with climate science. The k-12 education does not provide students with a basic understanding of science.
16
The problem is that those who are convinced by the case for anthropogenic global warming seem to know that they are right, and that therefore anyone who disagrees with them is wrong, and should therefore be silenced. Most of us find this an unattractive doctrine; with J S Mill, we feel that the minority should be argued with, not bashed into subservience. It may well be that the Heartland Institute's pamphlet is tendentious, but I have every confidence that one published by its opponents would be as bad, if not worse, in this regard.
Because all the experts are parti pris and committed to their existing viewpoint, it is impossible for the rest of us to judge the evidence. And so we keep a more open mind in the subject than we might do if the proponents of both viewpoints were prepared to argue honestly.
Because all the experts are parti pris and committed to their existing viewpoint, it is impossible for the rest of us to judge the evidence. And so we keep a more open mind in the subject than we might do if the proponents of both viewpoints were prepared to argue honestly.
8
Peter Hulse is wrong. Many scientists who now believe in anthropogenic global warming were convinced from an unconvinced position by the rational arguments for that position based on known physics theory and actual measurements. The argument he says he wants has been conducted for several decades within science and the "theory" of AGW has won out based on more and more, and stronger and stronger, evidence. The population at large, meanwhile, has available to it explanations of the evidence that make a convincing case.
Hulse's beliefs about the lack of "honesty" on the part of those who believe in AGW ("believe" not in the religious but in the scientific sense) are just prejudice, not based on the fact of honest debate within science. I just wonder if he would apply the same claim of "dishonesty" to those who claim that gravity obeys an inverse-square law? Does he stand up for the position that gravitation is caused by little angels and expect an "honest" argument from both sides?
Hulse's beliefs about the lack of "honesty" on the part of those who believe in AGW ("believe" not in the religious but in the scientific sense) are just prejudice, not based on the fact of honest debate within science. I just wonder if he would apply the same claim of "dishonesty" to those who claim that gravity obeys an inverse-square law? Does he stand up for the position that gravitation is caused by little angels and expect an "honest" argument from both sides?
2
One could easily say the same of those who deny climate change is caused by humans. Much of whats wrong is that everybody misunderstands the scientific method is not as straightforward as it is taught in high-schools. Also many do not realize that some studies are bogus (eg, those conducted by the very industries that make money off of the exacerbation of climate change by releasing greenhouse gases into the atmoshere And nobody understands that it will matter to everybody including themselves.
Thanks for so clearly demonstrating what having no idea how science works looks like. It's not a popularity contest.
The minority can have a say if they bring evidence. Scientists routinely change their minds when new evidence warrants. There is this overwhelming majority saying anthropogenic climate change is real because the evidence is that clear. And a careful look at the sources of research to the contrary shows it comes from those with a vested interest in denial, a clear conflict of interest that is rightly rejected.
No one's trying to force subservience so drop that tired tactic. An unbiased, clear-eyed look at the evidence is what is required. Are you capable of that?
The minority can have a say if they bring evidence. Scientists routinely change their minds when new evidence warrants. There is this overwhelming majority saying anthropogenic climate change is real because the evidence is that clear. And a careful look at the sources of research to the contrary shows it comes from those with a vested interest in denial, a clear conflict of interest that is rightly rejected.
No one's trying to force subservience so drop that tired tactic. An unbiased, clear-eyed look at the evidence is what is required. Are you capable of that?
1
The key concept, in my view, is 'narrative'. There is a powerful, underlying narrative--fundamental 'story' or view of the world--at work in the dominionist movement pridefully and triumphantly manifesting itself in the rise of Trumpism. However disparate it may be in 'religious-political' detail, everything about the movement (including its apparent immunity to ridicule and rejection) is designed to serve the goal of the narrative. Until or unless critical thinking comes to terms with and penetrates the narrative--until or unless the foundation of the narrative begins to crumble under its ultimately unsupportable weight--Heartland Institutes and their supporters will continue to dot if not dominate the cultural and intellectual landscape.
3
When the storms keep coming and get bigger and bigger the children will know the truth. Just living on the planet is all the evidence you need. I've been here 50 years in and just in my life I've seen a dramatic change. When I was a child in the great State of Maine the lakes would freeze, sometimes the harbor would freeze. Cars and trucks could drive on the lake to set up ice fishing shacks. Winter was long and cold. Now the lake does not freeze all winter. We did not have spring we had mud season. Now the beautiful New York spring is appearing in Maine. I like the beautiful spring days but I fear for my children and their children.
14
Teachers get a lot of unsolicited mail they have little time to read. I suspect the majority of recipients will toss it aside. State and local governments set curriculum.
2
Climate change may be too complicated a concept, so let's refocus the discussion on the simple concept of Conservation: The wisdom and common sense of conserving fossil fuel is irrefutable, and teachable.
2
while the Heartland Institute mails free glossy brochures to teachers, the scientific journals containing the (less glossy, more difficult to grasp) evidence on climate change is locked behind journal subscriptions that even universities struggle to afford. Yes, the science is there but it has a marketing problem. If a public minded institute that wasn't bent on disinformation wanted to fight against this, then finding open access to the relevant journals and giving this to schools and teachers seems a good place to start. sleek and glossy apps containing short videos by the articles authors explaining their findings for fourth graders would seal the deal on debunking HI.
18
You can't just give elementary school students scientific journals. They are full of jargon and assume a lot of background knowledge.
What's needed is a solid foundation in the scientific method, that shows the final arbiter of the quality of any idea to be impersonal, implacable Nature. And more importantly, teach that you don't get to just insist your belief gets equal time if you have no evidence.
If that foundation is there, then the evidence can be shown and explained in a way kids can understand it.
What's needed is a solid foundation in the scientific method, that shows the final arbiter of the quality of any idea to be impersonal, implacable Nature. And more importantly, teach that you don't get to just insist your belief gets equal time if you have no evidence.
If that foundation is there, then the evidence can be shown and explained in a way kids can understand it.
Knowing Heartland's funders and the power of ALEC, I wouldn't be surprised to find that this outreach to teachers is matched by an outreach to school board members at all levels and/or potential candidates for school boards. I would not be surprised to see statehouses passing legislation mandating a "balanced approach" to climate change... nor would I be surprised to see local and State Boards of education passing policies that mandate "balance".
And here's what is especially frustrating: climate change realists don't have the financial wherewithal to fight back against the climate change propagandists, who are underwritten by Big Oil... and the fight to teach the truth about climate change is especially difficult when the Executive Branch is populated with climate change deniers.
And here's what is especially frustrating: climate change realists don't have the financial wherewithal to fight back against the climate change propagandists, who are underwritten by Big Oil... and the fight to teach the truth about climate change is especially difficult when the Executive Branch is populated with climate change deniers.
10
Unscientific statistical methods were used to select samples and to calculate a supposed consensus percentage among people writing on the subject of a relationship between atmospheric carbon dioxide and global warming. There was neither an identified list of qualified registered voters, nor one specific proposition on which they voted. Civil law becomes "settled" by a majority of the judges or justices hearing a case. Science, on the other hand, is never settled and is usually advanced initially by one person, often standing alone, defining a theory or proposition. The theory is then is tested by others. Using a court analogy, he or she may lose a review 5 to 4, or 8 to 1, or 9 to 0, but ultimately may be proven correct at least for the time being. That is, until another maverick, let's call him Albert Einstein for purpose of identification, comes along and challenges something as nearly "settled" as the laws of the conservation of mass and conservation of energy. The UN's IPCC should be considered a political entity and not the court of final scientific jurisdiction in which we all have to march in lock step.
From the piece: "Long after the newer, better data convinced me and the vast majority of other climate scientists of the powerful human role in global warming, climate-change deniers still cling to the outdated idea of natural causes." What is not natural about natural humans, using their natural abilities to naturally manipulate the natural environment? What humans do must also be considered natural --- just as natural as a volcano erupting. But natural humans will naturally be on both sides of the climate debate, and in time, one side will naturally prevail.
As a teacher, I received one of these books in my school mailbox. It's a treasure trove of cherry-picked data, biased sources and ad hominem attacks. Contrary to what the Heartland Institute intended when they published these books, I'll be using them next year with my AP Seminar students to teach them how to identify propaganda disguised as science.
276
Perfect!
1
Excellent! May your example be followed by many others!
1
Schools have always been a fertile ground to sow fads and falsehoods. It is not just climate change denial, bogus psychological fads such as Emotional intelligence have become entrenched in modern schools.
What makes schools easily susceptible to fads and nonsense? The answer probably lies in the low intellectual aptitude of education Majors and dismal intellectual rigor in America's schools of education.
Educators today are more concerned about teaching so-called social and emotional skills than cultivating intellect or imparting subject knowledge. Not many realize that today’s popular educational and psychological attitudes are, in fact, anti-intellectual. They have directly or indirectly fostered a derision of books and intellectual inclination. Many children and adults have now come to view intellect and intellectual inclination as undesirable.
Considering the lack of regard for intellect and knowledge in the society and schools, it is not surprise that American teachers are ignorant about biological evolution or climate change. https://medium.com/@rs3/ad-astra-per-aspera-be7198657e3e
What makes schools easily susceptible to fads and nonsense? The answer probably lies in the low intellectual aptitude of education Majors and dismal intellectual rigor in America's schools of education.
Educators today are more concerned about teaching so-called social and emotional skills than cultivating intellect or imparting subject knowledge. Not many realize that today’s popular educational and psychological attitudes are, in fact, anti-intellectual. They have directly or indirectly fostered a derision of books and intellectual inclination. Many children and adults have now come to view intellect and intellectual inclination as undesirable.
Considering the lack of regard for intellect and knowledge in the society and schools, it is not surprise that American teachers are ignorant about biological evolution or climate change. https://medium.com/@rs3/ad-astra-per-aspera-be7198657e3e
4
A scientific theory must, by definition, make predictions that can be verified. Newton's theories about motion were verified, with one or two caveats (the orbit of Mercury refused to obey Newton's laws). Einstein's theories about relativity were verified (thus bringing Mercury's orbit into line).
The Theory of Global Warming has made predictions - and none of them have come true. Sea levels rising? They're also falling in some regions, and the rise is no different than the rise that has been occurring since the end of the last Glacial period. Temperatures have remained stable for the past 18 or so years - fluctuations have occurred, but they have always occurred. Arctic ice cover retreating? And it's also expanding. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts have all decreased over the last 100 years. The Theory of Global Warming is a non-starter.
At this point, the proponents of the Theory of Global Warming protest "Oh no, we weren't making predictions!" Except, as I pointed out above, that means: You're not doing science. Q.E.D.
The Theory of Global Warming has made predictions - and none of them have come true. Sea levels rising? They're also falling in some regions, and the rise is no different than the rise that has been occurring since the end of the last Glacial period. Temperatures have remained stable for the past 18 or so years - fluctuations have occurred, but they have always occurred. Arctic ice cover retreating? And it's also expanding. Hurricanes, tornadoes, floods, droughts have all decreased over the last 100 years. The Theory of Global Warming is a non-starter.
At this point, the proponents of the Theory of Global Warming protest "Oh no, we weren't making predictions!" Except, as I pointed out above, that means: You're not doing science. Q.E.D.
11
Every single one of your assertion is demonstrably false. It is true the sea levels seem to be falling at certain places, but that is caused by the land rising in those places and the rise of sea-level has been accelerating. Temperatures have been anything but stable over the past 18 years. Arctic ice cover is dropping like a stone over the past 20 years (with natural fluctuations, but still dropping), in its winter maximum, its summer minimum and its volume of old ice. You have to read the news and refresh your list of objections. Presenting falsified facts is definitely not good science.
1
Ergo geology isn't a science because geologists can't predict earthquakes. And therefore we cannot know if fracking causes earthquakes, even if rates of earthquakes increase by 1000% after the start of fracking activities in a given region.
More generally, any complex system that does not fit into a laboratory is out of reach of scientific investigation. This also applies e.g. to any theory about the genesis of the solar system or the lifecycle of the sun, because those cannot be verified in a laboratory, or by direct observation.
More generally, any complex system that does not fit into a laboratory is out of reach of scientific investigation. This also applies e.g. to any theory about the genesis of the solar system or the lifecycle of the sun, because those cannot be verified in a laboratory, or by direct observation.
2
I guess I am pretty ignorant but please do tell me how sea level can be rising in some places and falling in others at the same time? If I purr a cup of water in my half full bathtub the level goes up everywhere, sort of like the oceans do or at least I thought.
Climate change is a State matter. With the Sun revolving around an earth that is but 4,372 years old, we know from the written record that climate change is a local matter caused by creator wrath at unremediated-inherited sin.
I have never met any scientist who believes in climate change. I was reminded by a science teacher that the last occurrence of verifiable global warming was when the sun stood still for an extra day. Sea levels did not increase then.
I will admit there was a time when sea levels rose too Rain was the reason - the dome that separates the waters from the earth broke open. There is a simple experiment you can do at home that proves that cracks in the dome that separates the waters from the earth and not global warming are the cause of any increase in water levels. Drop ice cubes into a pitcher of water. When the ice melts the water level in the pitcher goes down slightly. Next, Take a plastic storage bag filled to water on top of the same pitcher of water. Poke a hole in the plastic bag and allow the water to drain into the pitcher. The water level in the pitcher will rise.
I have never met any scientist who believes in climate change. I was reminded by a science teacher that the last occurrence of verifiable global warming was when the sun stood still for an extra day. Sea levels did not increase then.
I will admit there was a time when sea levels rose too Rain was the reason - the dome that separates the waters from the earth broke open. There is a simple experiment you can do at home that proves that cracks in the dome that separates the waters from the earth and not global warming are the cause of any increase in water levels. Drop ice cubes into a pitcher of water. When the ice melts the water level in the pitcher goes down slightly. Next, Take a plastic storage bag filled to water on top of the same pitcher of water. Poke a hole in the plastic bag and allow the water to drain into the pitcher. The water level in the pitcher will rise.
1
The politicization of this debate has blurred the understanding of the problem,
just as the focus on CO2 can distract from SOx, NOx, and Hg emissions from dirty power plants.
Why not measure the fuel consumption itself, rather than trace gasses like CO2 and Methane?
Incidentally, those ice core data? It appears that outgassing from the cores results in significant under-estimation of historic CO2 levels.
Is climate changing? You bet. Man contributing? You bet. Want evidence? Look at the ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 14 in historical samples.
At best we're dealing with politically convenient debate around what is essentially a rate-of-change problem.
just as the focus on CO2 can distract from SOx, NOx, and Hg emissions from dirty power plants.
Why not measure the fuel consumption itself, rather than trace gasses like CO2 and Methane?
Incidentally, those ice core data? It appears that outgassing from the cores results in significant under-estimation of historic CO2 levels.
Is climate changing? You bet. Man contributing? You bet. Want evidence? Look at the ratio of Carbon 13 to Carbon 14 in historical samples.
At best we're dealing with politically convenient debate around what is essentially a rate-of-change problem.
1
What is disheartening are the statistics cited in this piece regarding science educators. What chance do students have when their teachers are woefully uninformed? And their is little promise of devotion to improvement in the next years. State houses held by those devoted to Koch money and a federal approach devoted to profiteering provide little hope.
It will be incumbent upon this young truth seeking science nerds to be our final line of defense. Ignore your teachers and devote yourselves to replicable facts.
It will be incumbent upon this young truth seeking science nerds to be our final line of defense. Ignore your teachers and devote yourselves to replicable facts.
Where is the objectivity in this article and the comments? There have been warming periods in earth's history that exceed the warming we see now, and man was not there causing it. Thus, there is a valid question on cause. Beyond that, many are on the warming band wagon, much like the band wagon of over population in the 1970s. If that theory had been right, most of us would have starved to death by now.
6
millions of people do starve to death, the over population issue just has not reached here yet. One thing about the climate is it affects the entire world, no national boundaries to keep the climate out.
"There have been warming periods in earth's history that exceed the warming we see now, and man was not there causing it."
There were forest fires before there were humans. Does that mean forest fires now can't caused by humans? Yes the planet was warmer at the time of the dinosaurs. So what? Do you really want to live in a world that's 5°C warmer than now?
There were forest fires before there were humans. Does that mean forest fires now can't caused by humans? Yes the planet was warmer at the time of the dinosaurs. So what? Do you really want to live in a world that's 5°C warmer than now?
2
Best thing that has happened in two decades. The politicization of the scientific community by scientifically ignorant but politically correct bureaucrats is a travesty.
It would be intellectually dishonest to claim that any species, including man, has no influence on climate.
It is equally dishonest to claim that the long period cycles that bring on periodic ice ages have anything whatsoever to do with anthropogenic causation. Those long period cycles are the species killers, not a small change in the slope of the curves.
The level of ignorance shown by the comments in this column proves that books like this are necessary.
5
Actually, whatever may or may not be the level of ignorance in the comments, it does not prove the necessity of such books. If anything, it argues for the opposite: critical understanding of what, how, and why we know what we think we know.
1
I would not claim without evidence that you are in the pay of the fossil fuel industry to help spread the lies about climate change.
But that just means you're working for them for free!
But that just means you're working for them for free!
No legitimate peer-reviewed scientific-method climate-science researcher claims "that the long period cycles that bring on periodic ice ages have anything whatsoever to do with anthropogenic causation". That is a complete red herring that the fossil-fuel industry has misrepresented as a weak link in climate science.
1
No matter how groups or individuals try to dumb down our youth or the population at large, the environment will continue to deteriorate eventually bringing catastrophic results. Perhaps it's better to be stupid about the things to come. One could live a happier life not knowing what is to come affecting them, their neighbor's and friends, or towns and cities they live in.
Shame for those who preach the righteousness of their beliefs on Climate Change. In the end the meek will not inherit the earth we now know but a sick world full of nature's disasters. And all a generation of people who were brought up on fake information about the climate will say, "I didn't know things would happen".
Shame for those who preach the righteousness of their beliefs on Climate Change. In the end the meek will not inherit the earth we now know but a sick world full of nature's disasters. And all a generation of people who were brought up on fake information about the climate will say, "I didn't know things would happen".
The Heartland Institute has been pushing these partisan and anti-intellectual approaches to education for quite some time: http://www.politicalresearch.org/2015/10/19/history-wars-exposed-right-w... . The institute has been attempting to distort, with some success, approaches to both history and science. From that link:
"Education has long been a front in the U.S. culture wars. In particular, conservatives have argued for at least two decades that secular progressives have taken over history studies to inculcate students with a negative view of the American past and present. Thanks to a concerted effort from members of the State Policy Network, such as the Boston-based Pioneer Institute and the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, high school history has remained a controversial subject on a national level."
The Heartland Institute has been active in undermining climate science education in Texas school textbooks for quite some time: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/texas-textbooks-butcher-climate-... . Some major textbook publishers have gone along with this nonsense, so the problem does not only sit with influencing schoolteachers.
"Education has long been a front in the U.S. culture wars. In particular, conservatives have argued for at least two decades that secular progressives have taken over history studies to inculcate students with a negative view of the American past and present. Thanks to a concerted effort from members of the State Policy Network, such as the Boston-based Pioneer Institute and the Chicago-based Heartland Institute, high school history has remained a controversial subject on a national level."
The Heartland Institute has been active in undermining climate science education in Texas school textbooks for quite some time: https://arstechnica.com/science/2014/09/texas-textbooks-butcher-climate-... . Some major textbook publishers have gone along with this nonsense, so the problem does not only sit with influencing schoolteachers.
7
The damage being done to the planet's environment is unprecedented. The destruction of habitats and the extinction of animals goes on at an accelerated pace. This is mainly to keep feeding an exploding human population with food and material desires of all sorts both real and imagined. Imagine what will happen when there are 30 billion of us? The planet won't be the same in 200 years, going outdoors will become intolerable. And our precious earth will become a wasteland, a monument to human greed and folly.
1
In a nation with states that not just permit but demand that religious dogmas regarding human creation be taught along with evolution, what makes us think that any science teacher in those states wouldn't also feel comfortable denying climate change as a product of human influences? The saddest part is that they oxymoronically call themselves "science teachers."
1
My first thought on reading about this Heartland Institute faux news is that I will be calling my grandchildren and asking what their children are learning about in science. Are they being taught that there are two very possible ways mankind developed, created or evolved. And that every so often the climate changes and there for global warming is not likely if even possible.
Every parent who isn't quite up to what is going on in their child's school had better find out soon.
Every parent who isn't quite up to what is going on in their child's school had better find out soon.
If 500 of 1500 science teachers taught as the author states then the problem is far more difficult than dealing with the booklet. Where did those 500 go to school? What would each commenter who is a teacher teach given how much class time?
And consider the situation at home. If x (40?) % of parents do not believe in human evolution then how can we expect their children to be able take in any understanding of something as multidisciplinary as findings on atmospheric and climate change?
When Ivanka takes over in 2020 (see Roger Cohen) the US may be beyond saving.
Only-Never in Sweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
And consider the situation at home. If x (40?) % of parents do not believe in human evolution then how can we expect their children to be able take in any understanding of something as multidisciplinary as findings on atmospheric and climate change?
When Ivanka takes over in 2020 (see Roger Cohen) the US may be beyond saving.
Only-Never in Sweden.blogspot.com
Dual citizen US SE
2
I would appreciate more information on the history and funding sources of the Heartland Institute. A 'follow the money' approach would allow me to better assess the credibility of the source.
2
Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer, a very important and well-researched book.
2
Terry
It's kind of light weight but, honestly, Wikipedia would be a good place to begin.
If you're still interested after that, use their reference list to start a search of your own.
Heartland, the Kochs, the Waltons and the Tea Party are notorious enough that information about Heartland is literally everywhere.,
It's kind of light weight but, honestly, Wikipedia would be a good place to begin.
If you're still interested after that, use their reference list to start a search of your own.
Heartland, the Kochs, the Waltons and the Tea Party are notorious enough that information about Heartland is literally everywhere.,
1
Mother Nature does not care what the Heartland Institute believes.
And barring rapid and significant change in our carbon-intensive lifestyle, the sea levels will continue to rise to levels such that many coastal areas will be under water in our grandchildren's lifetimes.
And barring rapid and significant change in our carbon-intensive lifestyle, the sea levels will continue to rise to levels such that many coastal areas will be under water in our grandchildren's lifetimes.
4
What is it that the people who deny there is a human component to climate change want? Do they want science to take a backseat to faith or rumor? Do they want unfettered reign to pollute at-will? Have they politicized it so much that denying the science is their way of "sticking it" to liberals? All of the above? I simply don't understand the motivation beyond simple corporate greed.
1
Suppose climate change is not the result of human activities. What then would we do about it? Just throw up our hands and do nothing? Pray? Or take actions to slow those mysterious changes?
Unless we choose either of the first two, what we would be doing is exactly what we would be doing if climate change is caused by humans: reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and reduce population growth to provide a greater margin of safety if a major ecosystem collapse were to occur. So why do we need to argue over the cause?
Unless we choose either of the first two, what we would be doing is exactly what we would be doing if climate change is caused by humans: reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, and reduce population growth to provide a greater margin of safety if a major ecosystem collapse were to occur. So why do we need to argue over the cause?
3
"Less than half also correctly identified the degree of consensus among climate scientists that human activities are the primary cause of global warming."
That sentence is truly disturbing to me. Just a quick google search about climate change will give you that information. It is very sad that teachers would not keep up with the information they need to teach our children.
That sentence is truly disturbing to me. Just a quick google search about climate change will give you that information. It is very sad that teachers would not keep up with the information they need to teach our children.
2
I'm a twenty-year public school history teacher for the Los Angeles Unified School District, and if I used a screed from a political think-tank, either a conservative or liberal one, I should lose my credential.
My teaching is guided by state content-standards, and every lesson I teach must be aligned with them. Of course, I'm in California, where we actually believe in and promote science. It's the kids in Kansas, Alabama, and a few other states I can think of that I'd worry about.
As for the Heartland Institute, I don't really get it. Those folks have to breathe the same air and live in the same climate as the rest of us. Oh, well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
My teaching is guided by state content-standards, and every lesson I teach must be aligned with them. Of course, I'm in California, where we actually believe in and promote science. It's the kids in Kansas, Alabama, and a few other states I can think of that I'd worry about.
As for the Heartland Institute, I don't really get it. Those folks have to breathe the same air and live in the same climate as the rest of us. Oh, well, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
2
To paraphrase some wise man (was it H.L Menken?): it is easy to deny the truth when your paycheck depends on your doing so.
I'm a science teacher that received a copy of that book several months ago. A quick scan showed it to be a complete collection of falsehood and propaganda. Any science teacher in America that believes the rubbish in that book is unworthy of their station. I encourage any parent of a student in such a teachers classroom to show up at the monthly board of education meeting and demand that that teacher be fired for failing to teach the science of climate change. You might as well have a science teacher denying the germ theory of disease, that the world is flat, that we never landed on the moon. Science teachers must teach the facts.
6
"The most dangerous organization in history", the Republican Party is unabashedly lying about climate change, about carbon dioxide, about coal for one reason: greed.
Subverting education is evil. That sounds absolute and over the top. It is also true. Propaganda that seeks to teach lies to children is not deliberately destructive. Indoctrinating young people to promote a catastrophic future is deeply disturbed.
Subverting education is evil. That sounds absolute and over the top. It is also true. Propaganda that seeks to teach lies to children is not deliberately destructive. Indoctrinating young people to promote a catastrophic future is deeply disturbed.
3
Does it really matter what causes climate change? Throughout history, both recorded and prior, the earth has been both cooler and warmer than it is today. And yet somehow, humans, as a species, have adapted and not only survived, but thrived. Enacting policies that would have little impact on the climate, but devastating effects on our economy, is a cure worse than the disease. The underlying philosophy of the left's climate hysteria is much more red than it is green.
2
False assumption one: that because climate change happened naturally in the past, human induced climate change cannot happen. Kind of like saying that your house burned down due to a lightening strike in the past, therefore if you light a match to it nothing will happen.
False assumption two: --that because humans "survived" natural climate change in the past, we will "survive" man-made climate now. I teach history: entire civilizations were destroyed by climate change (start with Ancient Sumer; the Maya), catastrophic events like the 14th century plague are tied to climate change--nearly one half of Europe's population died on that one. Back then the entire global human population was about 500 million, now its nearly 8 billion. Where will we all go now as the seas rise, our resources fail, and pandemics sweep through populations?
False assumption three: that enacting policies that encourage environmental and climate friendly action will be devastating economically. These policies are the greatest economic opportunity we have had since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The only one who will be devastated by responsible climate polices ae those invested in fossil fuels.
False assumption two: --that because humans "survived" natural climate change in the past, we will "survive" man-made climate now. I teach history: entire civilizations were destroyed by climate change (start with Ancient Sumer; the Maya), catastrophic events like the 14th century plague are tied to climate change--nearly one half of Europe's population died on that one. Back then the entire global human population was about 500 million, now its nearly 8 billion. Where will we all go now as the seas rise, our resources fail, and pandemics sweep through populations?
False assumption three: that enacting policies that encourage environmental and climate friendly action will be devastating economically. These policies are the greatest economic opportunity we have had since the beginning of the industrial revolution. The only one who will be devastated by responsible climate polices ae those invested in fossil fuels.
1
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations body that studies climate change and won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009 for this work, has gathered the definitive information on global warming in the last 4 Ice Ages, going back 120,000 years.
Each of the four times the glacial cold period ended, both temperatures and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rose. As they state on their website and show with the charts there, the rise in the CO2 level lagged behind the rise in temperature by "several hundred years" every time. The lag time was as much as a thousand years.
The temperature started rising, and then several hundred years later, so did the levels of atmospheric CO2. CO2 cannot be a major cause.
Don't believe me. Go to the IPCC website and read it for yourself.
Or would you rather just shout pre-digested pap? I wonder.
Each of the four times the glacial cold period ended, both temperatures and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere rose. As they state on their website and show with the charts there, the rise in the CO2 level lagged behind the rise in temperature by "several hundred years" every time. The lag time was as much as a thousand years.
The temperature started rising, and then several hundred years later, so did the levels of atmospheric CO2. CO2 cannot be a major cause.
Don't believe me. Go to the IPCC website and read it for yourself.
Or would you rather just shout pre-digested pap? I wonder.
3
Ok. I did a little searching as you suggested, Diogenes. And this is the bottom line that I came up with: "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Report Summary (http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013/09/27/science/IPCC-report-summar...
The panel of experts unveiled its latest assessment of climate research, reinforcing its earlier conclusions that global warming is real and that it is caused primarily if not exclusively by man-made emissions." (Not my conclusions, THEIRS...)
The panel of experts unveiled its latest assessment of climate research, reinforcing its earlier conclusions that global warming is real and that it is caused primarily if not exclusively by man-made emissions." (Not my conclusions, THEIRS...)
1
Each " ice age " lasts 100,000 years ( 90,000 years of ice; 10,000 years of warmth, averaged ) . Not four ice ages in 120,000 years.
The average period of time before increased CO2 appears after a warming period is 700 years. Which would put the present day increase in CO2 in line wth the warming that occurred during the medieval warm period (c. 1350).
The average period of time before increased CO2 appears after a warming period is 700 years. Which would put the present day increase in CO2 in line wth the warming that occurred during the medieval warm period (c. 1350).
1
Diogenes. If you're quoting a website, what you say is also pre-digested.
1
It's a shame the article doesn't note that Heartland don't disclose their funders, this must have cost a lot of money and it raises the question of who paid for it.
5
I'm so thankful to author Curt Stager and the NY Times for publishing this informative though upsetting opinion piece. We need more people like Stager and more organizations like the Times to do everything possible to spread the word and to take action against climate deniers, starting with our own president.
2
Climate-change deniers have profited for years by the misuse of the concept of certainty. Over and over, they assert that we cannot be certain of the causes of climate change, and therefore do not need to alter our behavior in ways that might reduce it (if it were to turn out to be true that human activity is causing the shift).
The truth is that we almost never act on the basis of certainty; rather, we frame our laws and make our personal decisions in the arena of what is probable. For example, there is a vanishingly small chance that any of us will be killed in an accident on a particular car trip, but we are required to wear seat belts. Seat belts save 9,500 lives per year in this country (out of 324.5 million people), yet, we alter our behavior to eliminate the risk. Similarly, we wear helmets when we ride bicycles, strap our children into car seats, actively promote a non-smoking lifestyle.
Each of these, if reversed, would inflict damage that would be utterly insignificant compared with crippling the ecosphere of our planet. Why, then, hold out for certainty on only this one issue?
The truth is that we almost never act on the basis of certainty; rather, we frame our laws and make our personal decisions in the arena of what is probable. For example, there is a vanishingly small chance that any of us will be killed in an accident on a particular car trip, but we are required to wear seat belts. Seat belts save 9,500 lives per year in this country (out of 324.5 million people), yet, we alter our behavior to eliminate the risk. Similarly, we wear helmets when we ride bicycles, strap our children into car seats, actively promote a non-smoking lifestyle.
Each of these, if reversed, would inflict damage that would be utterly insignificant compared with crippling the ecosphere of our planet. Why, then, hold out for certainty on only this one issue?
303
One: Follow the money.
Two: Why else do ultra-conservative groups who know nothing about science and scientific method resist the fact of climate change when it is upheld by scientists? Because if they "believe" in scientific findings, they will also have to "believe" in evolution.
The central issue really is separation of church and state, which conservative groups also "deny" (see Linda Greenhouse's column today on funding for church-based playgrounds). You can believe in the tooth fairy, but that doesn't make you a dentist.
Two: Why else do ultra-conservative groups who know nothing about science and scientific method resist the fact of climate change when it is upheld by scientists? Because if they "believe" in scientific findings, they will also have to "believe" in evolution.
The central issue really is separation of church and state, which conservative groups also "deny" (see Linda Greenhouse's column today on funding for church-based playgrounds). You can believe in the tooth fairy, but that doesn't make you a dentist.
2
You raise great points, but unfortunately rationality and reasoning do not apply with these people. It is only about following the money. Seat belts and bicycle helmets can be sold for a profit, so why not justify these things by stating (correctly) that they save lives. It's a win-win. Non-smoking lifestyles were promoted only after exposing the tobacco industry for what it is -- pure, unadulterated death -- and the subsequent public outrage. Otherwise, we would still be smoking like chimneys, since that profits big tobacco. *Eventually* people will come to their senses with global warming, but only after sufficient misery has been inflicted on the planet by the for-profit fossil fuel industry. How long that will take is anyone's guess. But in terms of certainty, one thing is for sure: as long as money can be made, logic, and what's best for people, will always be shown the door.
3
Because it's inconvenient for them to look outside their frame of reference. If it's a business it involves their bottom line and anytime that's the issue you can count on the business being unable to understand the issue(s) at all. Money speaks louder than reality.
2
As a former classroom teacher I've dealt with these people personally. They present themselves as reasonable skeptics who are interested in scientific inquiry. They present no valid counter-arguments to scientific evidence, their entire presentation consists in attempts to punch holes in the climate change model. Still this is not a problem, the science and math of global warming is solid and will stand up to questioning.
But once you have refuted their arguments and ask for experimental based counter evidence, they just ignore you and keep repeating their talking points as if it were an indisputable fact and declaring that you have not defended your case to their satisfaction. After a while it is obvious that no matter how many facts you present, it will never be convincing to them.
They have a mission and it ain't science.
But once you have refuted their arguments and ask for experimental based counter evidence, they just ignore you and keep repeating their talking points as if it were an indisputable fact and declaring that you have not defended your case to their satisfaction. After a while it is obvious that no matter how many facts you present, it will never be convincing to them.
They have a mission and it ain't science.
562
As a former researcher I've dealt with people like this too. Facts don't interest them. They have no desire to understand how science works. It's alarming to watch them control what our children are taught, what research is done, and how our country decides things.
3
I've had similar experiences with members of some religious sects. only talking points without rigorous debate.
2
@Drew: There is absolutely no consensus among scientifiques re fundamental causes of climate change, and there never will be.. When is the last time the entire scientific community agreed on anything? Similar to controversy re regicide in Dallas in November 1963. For every researcher, assassination buff who maintains that JFK'S death was the action of a lone assassin, there are at least double that number who would respond by saying,"O.K., then what were all those anti Castro exiles doing in Dallas with their scopes and rifles shortly before fatal shooting of our President? Can Hugh McDonald, Anthony Sumner, Mark Lane(Albert Shanker's brother)D.C. attorney Fensterwald who defended James Earl Ray, all of whom believed there was a conspiracy to kill the Pres., can they all be mistaken? Apostles of man made climate change have profited big time in terms of government grants. Holier than thou folks act as if it were a cardinal sin to deny their hypothesis. For them, a climate change denier is equivalent to a Holocaust denier. Rather have students learn word usage, how to write coherent sentences and essays using the king' English than have them waste time on such a trendy topic.First things first."Laissez tomber!" Students should learn elements of style ,know who Voltaire was, comprehend the importance of Munich and Chamberlain's role , just some examples.Climate change issue should be relegated to the tertiary category of current events.
Spreading ignorance seems to be the goal of the Heartland Institute. Denying the impact humans have on the climate is up there with creationism and intelligent design. In the age of Trump and alternative facts no one should be surprised by this. It's influence is slight at this time but it is pernicious and such claims must be demolished with real facts. The schools should use the glossy book as an example of fake science and educate students on what scientists actually know. The Heartland Institute can be doing science education a favor.
36
This is about money and the deep pockets of the fossil fuel industry in general and the Koch Machine in particular. Read "Dark Money" by Jane Mayer for a clearer understanding.
1
'Dangerously' approaching Critical Thinking Skills which have fallen out of favor with help of the Religious and Political Right.
1
Distinguish between two separate issues.
Is climate change occurring.
If so to what extent is human activity responsible.
The melting of the polar ice masses is irrefutable evidence that warming is occurring.
While there are other causes of warming besides the release of CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burned , the greenhouse effect of CO2 in causing warming is well established.
The fossil fuel industry makes money if fossil fuels are used TODAY.
What happens in the future is irrelevant to them.
They present fossil fuel company execs will have croaked by then.
As the wife of Louis Quinze remarked
"Apres moi le deluge"
The question remains.
How do we generate the energy and electrical power that is presently produced by burning fossil fuels.
Solar and wind can not now completely replace fossil fuels.
Technology can be developed to trap the CO2 and other stuff released when fossil fuels are burned.
While it is not now profitable for private profit making fossil fuel companies to do this research and development a Manhattan type government project could do so.
Is climate change occurring.
If so to what extent is human activity responsible.
The melting of the polar ice masses is irrefutable evidence that warming is occurring.
While there are other causes of warming besides the release of CO2 produced when fossil fuels are burned , the greenhouse effect of CO2 in causing warming is well established.
The fossil fuel industry makes money if fossil fuels are used TODAY.
What happens in the future is irrelevant to them.
They present fossil fuel company execs will have croaked by then.
As the wife of Louis Quinze remarked
"Apres moi le deluge"
The question remains.
How do we generate the energy and electrical power that is presently produced by burning fossil fuels.
Solar and wind can not now completely replace fossil fuels.
Technology can be developed to trap the CO2 and other stuff released when fossil fuels are burned.
While it is not now profitable for private profit making fossil fuel companies to do this research and development a Manhattan type government project could do so.
5
Actually, solar and wind can indeed supply the world's energy many times over - given priority and investment. This is actually much more viable with current tech. than the notion of using technology to trap CO2. We already have a good tool to trap CO2. It is called green plants and we need to protect and expand them.
1
Stanford University engineers published research that showed: a) the US could get 100% of its electricity from wind, water, and solar by 2050 and b) that this would not degrade the reliability of the delivery grid.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/an-all-windwaterso...
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/renewables/an-all-windwaterso...
1
Sounds like an outfit called the Discovery Center (based in the northwest) a few years ago. They were touting a document they claimed was signed by 400 scientists basically saying that global warming (the phrase then) was nonsense. I took the list of scientists and googled any number of the ones listed with a PhD. Not one of them came up on the web other than in connection with this center and its document. PhDs I know personally have a rich and extensive online presence with academic work, papers published, conferences in which they presented papers etc. Clearly these "scientists" were either did not exist at all (I have no PhD, but a pretty clear presence on a google search) or are not who they were claimed to be.
158
I believe the businesses behind this travesty should be sued for all their money for attempting to influence everyone - not just students - and ruining not just this country but our planet.
Why is their insidious rapacious monetary assault on the globe more important than the future of woman/mankind? When is enough money enough? I just don't get it. If you can't breathe the air or drink clean water you can't physically hold your money. Unless we want to be like China where they pay $600 for a jar of clean air imported from Napal. Sickening.
Why is their insidious rapacious monetary assault on the globe more important than the future of woman/mankind? When is enough money enough? I just don't get it. If you can't breathe the air or drink clean water you can't physically hold your money. Unless we want to be like China where they pay $600 for a jar of clean air imported from Napal. Sickening.
138
Read recently that Chinese leaders finally get it and are acting sanely. They encourage electric cars with financial incentives and the purchase of a gas guzzler is prohibitive. I don't have all the facts, and I would like to read a Times article on their progress. Maybe I missed one. Not much chance that our current leaders will follow China's lead before our cities begin to suffer like those in China. 2018--we have an opportunity here to get rid of some of these 'leaders'.
1
You are on your way to becoming a god to all lawyers! If we could sue each other for blabbering gibberish, then virtually all politicians would serve life sentences and so would at least half the country. The only thing that protects us is the First Amendment. Let's better keep that the way it is.
Very sad to learn that teachers are deceived by glossy marketing & lack of analytical skills.
57
Indeed. Given low starting salaries (in most states) and regular denigration by politicians and the media, how many of our best and brightest teachers give it up for a an easier, more lucrative career?
In addition to that, years ago I heard a lot of rumbling that the teaching profession was looking for mid-career STEM professionals interested in sharing their knowledge and becoming teachers. I quickly discovered that was a lie. It is not possible to break into the teaching profession once you have spent time in the workforce, because states and school boards start new teachers at the same rate, regardless of background. Imagine switching jobs to reduce income by 50%, once a person has a mortgage and other financial obligations. Few people are in a position to do that.
In addition to that, years ago I heard a lot of rumbling that the teaching profession was looking for mid-career STEM professionals interested in sharing their knowledge and becoming teachers. I quickly discovered that was a lie. It is not possible to break into the teaching profession once you have spent time in the workforce, because states and school boards start new teachers at the same rate, regardless of background. Imagine switching jobs to reduce income by 50%, once a person has a mortgage and other financial obligations. Few people are in a position to do that.
2
Not all. I received the glossy book a few weeks back. I promised my students I would read it and did. My book is heavily highlighted and annotated. It is polished and convincing if one is gullible and does not read carefully. However, the authors repeatedly accuse global warming "alarmists" of doing the same things they turn around and do themselves. Repeatedly.
The best tell for me was the assertion that scientists from every state had declared climate a hoax. 400 in Montana alone. I looked them all up. One died
well before the statement was written and signed. Others are engaged in the oil biz. Only a few appear to be engaged in areas related to atmospheric science.
I read it to show my climate change skeptics/students that I am willing to engage other viewpoints and was able to report the above to them. Oh, I have taught them to be reasonably skeptical. I am also teaching them analysis of evidence. I will happily read this NYT opinion piece today.
The best tell for me was the assertion that scientists from every state had declared climate a hoax. 400 in Montana alone. I looked them all up. One died
well before the statement was written and signed. Others are engaged in the oil biz. Only a few appear to be engaged in areas related to atmospheric science.
I read it to show my climate change skeptics/students that I am willing to engage other viewpoints and was able to report the above to them. Oh, I have taught them to be reasonably skeptical. I am also teaching them analysis of evidence. I will happily read this NYT opinion piece today.
2
@June,
Why the need to bash teachers? Everyone makes mistakes. For example, the clarity of your comment would be improved by saying, "...teachers are deceived by glossy marketing and are lacking analytical skills."
The way you wrote it implies that, "...teachers are deceived by lack of anaytical skills." Certainly, you didn't mean that the people doing the deception are in some way lacking analysis?
Yep, everyone gets tricked. Everyone makes mistakes. Let's keep the focus on the wrong doing, rather than the small percentage of unwitting teachers.
Why the need to bash teachers? Everyone makes mistakes. For example, the clarity of your comment would be improved by saying, "...teachers are deceived by glossy marketing and are lacking analytical skills."
The way you wrote it implies that, "...teachers are deceived by lack of anaytical skills." Certainly, you didn't mean that the people doing the deception are in some way lacking analysis?
Yep, everyone gets tricked. Everyone makes mistakes. Let's keep the focus on the wrong doing, rather than the small percentage of unwitting teachers.
It's bad to be ignorant. It's evil to encourage ignorance in others. The Heartland Institute is evil.
474
Sadly, the states that allow this evil-intentioned influence will continue to lag behind the rest of the country. Coal ash, industrial pig farms and unprotected water ways are not environmental progress. Teaching lies, intentional lies, is the worst possible evil to inflict on our children.
5
It's going to be difficult reschooling the teachers who have already bought into the pseudoscience malarkey, but the universities that provide teaching certification programs can get on top of the issue with focused training. New teachers going out in the schools can have a ripple effect in departments if they are brave enough to debunk climate doubts in their colleagues through the use of evidence. It is science, after all.
90
I am an old science teacher busily debunking pseudoscience daily. It's a big job.
3
If teachers are found espousing this "fake science" and refuse to be reschooled, they should fired. End of story. Unless they're in one of Betsy DeVos' dens of profit and ignorance-then they can do whatever they want.
1
This publication will be invaluable to teachers and school librarians around the country who want to teach information literacy and important lessons on fake news! Totally awesome of Heartland to provide me with great high quality booklets that I can dissect and repudiate with my students! Don't recycle them; take them to your school librarian so s/he can start building a class set. I'll be using them to illustrate the CRAAP test. Is the source credible, reasonable, authoritative, accurate and does it provide sources that also meet these criteria? Clearly, doesn't pass the test. Give it an F for science but an A for providing a perfect counter example.
684
Right on - an excellent teaching opportunity. There was an old advertising saying " We couldn't say it on TV if it wasn't true." Schools should start offering courses with Titles like "Yes, they CAN say it on TV even if it isn't true (never mind the Net)." Writings like those issued by the Heartland so-called "Institute" would make great primary material.
3
Just to make sure your idea gets implemented correctly, write the teachers guide and put it on the internet for free. I'm sure others will contribute with videos and experiments that can engage students at all levels.
2
I use the CRAAP test w students. My heavily annotated copy will be available in my classroom.
2
Bast and the Heartland Institute he founded have a long history of denying science and have a long history of being wrong in the service of industry. They fought back on research linking smoking to cancer and delayed or nations understanding of that relationship for decades. Don't let them to the same thing to climate science.
99
There is no mention of the Koch brothers funding the Heartland Institute.
226
Are they the ones behind it? If so, the article should have said so, I think. Whoever is funding this project should have been identified.
1
Or NPR.
1
I cannot figure out which model we are leaning to. The model which can be found under extreme religious theocracies, which suppresses ideas that run counter to religious belief with a charge of blasphemy and a penalty of death. And which run all schools to control the ideas taught.
Or is it closer to the fall of Rome? We have the barbarians at the gate, and we can say good-bye to the Renaissance and hope some monks preserve ideas.
But I do know that our current trend of countering science with sciencey, and the full court press to undermine important, validated information - whether it is about climate, or evolution, or vaccines, or any other well documented scientific conclusion or consensus - will undermine the nation.
Ignorance is not only not bliss, it drives civilization backward.
Yeats wrote "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." The best don't always lack conviction, but they are bad at promoting it. And the worst are passionate about promoting their convictions.
That is the hurdle we need to get over, if we want to be a strong society. We need to recognize reality when it is running us over. And that means we need to adopt tactics that counter the ignorant guerrilla warfare battering empirical reality for desperately held opinion.
Or is it closer to the fall of Rome? We have the barbarians at the gate, and we can say good-bye to the Renaissance and hope some monks preserve ideas.
But I do know that our current trend of countering science with sciencey, and the full court press to undermine important, validated information - whether it is about climate, or evolution, or vaccines, or any other well documented scientific conclusion or consensus - will undermine the nation.
Ignorance is not only not bliss, it drives civilization backward.
Yeats wrote "The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity." The best don't always lack conviction, but they are bad at promoting it. And the worst are passionate about promoting their convictions.
That is the hurdle we need to get over, if we want to be a strong society. We need to recognize reality when it is running us over. And that means we need to adopt tactics that counter the ignorant guerrilla warfare battering empirical reality for desperately held opinion.
129
Thank you for getting at the "heart," "heartlessness," and "passion," and "passionless" of the cultural dialectic. Your brief analysis of the larger challenge is terrific really.
2
So true and on point!!!!
2
Life is much better when you shun every last pretenetious twit who claims to know what God thinks.
2
It's usually sex that's in their scopes.
But how is this different from what ISIS has been doing and what the Arabs are doing in Israel, and what the Catholic church has done for millenia?
But how is this different from what ISIS has been doing and what the Arabs are doing in Israel, and what the Catholic church has done for millenia?
20
Just for the record - the Catholic church is in favor of vaccines, is in agreement that climate change is real and man-made, and has repeatedly said that evolution is not contrary to Catholic doctrine. So Gabriella, get with it!
2
Gabriella
It's not different, you're right.
They're all (include Israel as a perpetrator as well as a victim) corrupt, self-interested, greedy organizations run by people of a similar bent.
Even when the occasional Francis arises, their impact is diluted beyond meaning and buried under tons of conservative propaganda.
Is your point "So what? Everybody does it."? Or maybe "Seen this before, eh?"? Or "Look what these other guys did; we got through that."
A big difference with Heartland, of course, is that it's a Koch/Walton/Tea Party creature committed to spreading doubt for profit. Heartland tailors 'facts' on contract to support whatever corporation comes along. And they want to wreck the planet.
Cigarettes and cancer? No Way! Get GOVERNMENT off my back!!
Pollution's a bad thing? Are you kidding? Global warming will make Alaska more fertile than Iowa. It's God's plan. GET GOVERNMENT OFF MY BACK!!
Charter schools? Sure.
Privatization of any damn thing you can imagine, to the already rich of course? You betcha!
Alternative energy? No way! And let's beef up those oil subsidies...look what they've had to deal with.
Healthcare? Sure. If you can afford it.
Social support? No. Rational immigration? Wait...what?! Massive fracking? Well, yeah.
Heartland Institute and its vile disinformation is exhibit one that we need to refine our understanding of free speech, proof positive of the tragedy of equating dollars with speech and corporations with people.
It's not different, you're right.
They're all (include Israel as a perpetrator as well as a victim) corrupt, self-interested, greedy organizations run by people of a similar bent.
Even when the occasional Francis arises, their impact is diluted beyond meaning and buried under tons of conservative propaganda.
Is your point "So what? Everybody does it."? Or maybe "Seen this before, eh?"? Or "Look what these other guys did; we got through that."
A big difference with Heartland, of course, is that it's a Koch/Walton/Tea Party creature committed to spreading doubt for profit. Heartland tailors 'facts' on contract to support whatever corporation comes along. And they want to wreck the planet.
Cigarettes and cancer? No Way! Get GOVERNMENT off my back!!
Pollution's a bad thing? Are you kidding? Global warming will make Alaska more fertile than Iowa. It's God's plan. GET GOVERNMENT OFF MY BACK!!
Charter schools? Sure.
Privatization of any damn thing you can imagine, to the already rich of course? You betcha!
Alternative energy? No way! And let's beef up those oil subsidies...look what they've had to deal with.
Healthcare? Sure. If you can afford it.
Social support? No. Rational immigration? Wait...what?! Massive fracking? Well, yeah.
Heartland Institute and its vile disinformation is exhibit one that we need to refine our understanding of free speech, proof positive of the tragedy of equating dollars with speech and corporations with people.
1
...unfortunately the climate deniers will not be more affected than climate activists...sound uncaring? well so is nature...
7
Curt Stager is wrong. He needs to read up on the science. Publishing this is an embarrassment to both him and the Times. The Heartland Institute has it exactly right. The quickest and easiest giveaway is that he tries to rely on the long-ago debunked "97 percent consensus," which no serious scientist believes exist, and which all serious scientists acknowledge is a wild distortion and manufacture of "fake" facts.
9
Yeah, the scientists need to read up on the "science" being spewed by an organization which previously denied links between smoking and cancer. I don't think so.
12
The consensus of actual scientists is well over 97% now. There are still crackpots pushing lues and distortions but these are not scientists.
The models of climate change from last century are proven right. In fact, most understated the amount of change and the danger we all face.
The models of climate change from last century are proven right. In fact, most understated the amount of change and the danger we all face.
15
The 97% consensus has been confirmed repeatedly. The only people who don't believe it exists are those who have a financial stake in fossil fuels, and those uncritical enough to believe them.
Please provide citations from peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims — actually these claims come originally from the same people who fought for decades to convince the public that smoking is unrelated to cancer. These people are the generators of "fake facts."
As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total. Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming.
Only a tiny handful of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.
Please provide citations from peer-reviewed journals to back up your claims — actually these claims come originally from the same people who fought for decades to convince the public that smoking is unrelated to cancer. These people are the generators of "fake facts."
As geochemist James Lawrence Powell continues to prove, the only people still debating whether or not climate change is “real,” and caused by human activity, are the ones who aren’t doing the actual research. In an update to his ongoing project of reviewing the literature on global warming, Powell went through every scientific study published in a peer-review journal during the calendar year 2013, finding 10,885 in total. Of those, a mere two rejected anthropogenic global warming.
Only a tiny handful of the most vocal global warming deniers, those who write op-eds and blogs and testify to congressional committees, have ever written a peer-reviewed article in which they say explicitly that anthropogenic global warming is false. Why? Because then they would have to provide the evidence and, evidently, they don’t have it.
9
Lets have a book burning on land that was polluted by people who didnt follow the rules. Lets call out these organizations that are polluting our towns. Locally we have to fight these people who are hiding so much.
9
Well how soon can we expect a Betsy DeVos-GOP sponsored new Spanish Inquisition of teachers who refuse to teach "alternative" scientific facts? This country seems to be on the road to becoming "dumb and dumber" just like our President. Resist!
321
Deniers? A "science" that's reduced to relabelling its critical skeptics is suspect at best. Once that slight is finally overcome, perhaps we'll get to the truth, which -- after so many years looping conformation feedback -- likely has nothing to do with consensus. I'm reminded of an old SNL skit (back when they were insightfully funny, not politically targeted) spoofing the educational system with a Jeopardy category "high school students' answers."
11
Deniers are labeled as "deniers" not skeptics. Skeptics are people willing to consider evidence. Deniers are people that ignore reality.
10
You don't follow this topic closely.
1. What are the "skeptic" arguments against human-caused climate change?
2. What are the responses to those arguments?
When you can answer those questions, you may notice all "skeptic" arguments have been refuted, yet skeptics keep bringing them up, as if they had not. The only parallel that I am aware of is the debate fundamentalists have with the world regarding evolution.
1. What are the "skeptic" arguments against human-caused climate change?
2. What are the responses to those arguments?
When you can answer those questions, you may notice all "skeptic" arguments have been refuted, yet skeptics keep bringing them up, as if they had not. The only parallel that I am aware of is the debate fundamentalists have with the world regarding evolution.
9
Putting science in scare quotes? Give me a break. And the science didn't label anyone, the people who deny it did it to themselves.
6
If I had a copy, I would lean it up against a tree and invite the neighbors to walk their dogs past it.
25
The science teachers who receive this book should send it back postage due.
48
See my letter above. I read it with purpose.
The Heartland Institute - another pet project of the Mercer's, along with Breitbart News and the Trump White House.
Heartland's scientific positions are so amateurish and sloppy I'm amazed they didn't simply disintegrate five years ago, or more. But here they are. Fresh and ready to go, again.
I hope to read an expose soon of who has funded this organization.
Heartland's scientific positions are so amateurish and sloppy I'm amazed they didn't simply disintegrate five years ago, or more. But here they are. Fresh and ready to go, again.
I hope to read an expose soon of who has funded this organization.
101
"The Heartland Institute received $736,500 from Exxon Mobil between 1998 and 2006, according to the group’s spokesman Jim Lakely, and $25,000 in 2011 from foundations affiliated with Charles G. Koch and David H. Koch, whose firm Koch Industries has substantial oil and energy holdings." https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/climate-skeptic-g...
5
Why is there no background information on the "Heartland Institute" included in this article ? This so called 'think tank' is a shameless shill for the financial interests of the industries they represent.
Background information like how this "institute' once defended tobacco companies from claims about the negative effects of that product !
There is no mention in this piece about the relationship to the Koch's or the other "Dark Money" behind it's devious disinformation campaigns.
Background information like how this "institute' once defended tobacco companies from claims about the negative effects of that product !
There is no mention in this piece about the relationship to the Koch's or the other "Dark Money" behind it's devious disinformation campaigns.
439
True: If there was truth in naming the "Heartland" Institute would be the "We Have No Heart In Any Land Institute".
2
But the book must be good. It is recommended by a spokesman for the "Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation" ... teachers will lap that up like the rest of the koolaide. It's basically over for America.
19
The dumbing-down of America - which has been going on for far too long - has reached its peak. How can we survive with a "leader" who doesn't read, doesn't think and doesn't care. SAD! BIGLY!
46
The Heartland Institute --- they also were active a few years ago telling us tobacco does not cause cancer.
The Merchants of Doubt, great book. It details the misinformation campaigns against science fact.
The Merchants of Doubt, great book. It details the misinformation campaigns against science fact.
121
As David Brooks implied in his piece several weeks ago, a reverence for truth and knowledge may be an an aberration in human history.
We who grew up idealizing the enlightenment and it's scientific method watch in dismay as the the progress toward knowledge and truth slows to a crawl.
We who grew up idealizing the enlightenment and it's scientific method watch in dismay as the the progress toward knowledge and truth slows to a crawl.
62
The Heartland Institute is the perfect example of a phony 501C organization that takes tax exempt dollars under the guise of social welfare and communicates lies. They have an agenda to spread lies that benefit a company through fewer regulations by making our air and water dirty.
A huge waste of money with a tax deduction to boot. An insult to every American.
A huge waste of money with a tax deduction to boot. An insult to every American.
250
Totally on board with you.
2
Debate is useful. The debate that should be taking place in American classrooms is what we should be doing to mitigate and adapt to climate change. Yes, we learn more all the time about the nature of climate change, how fast it is happening, and possible ways to slow its development. That it has been caused by human activity is not in question by any reputable source.
15
This level of unscrupulous, hateful dishonesty induces endless dry heaves.
It is probably too much to hope that the teachers targeted here are well enough educated to throw this trash into the recycling. Some wealthy endowments are needed to counteract this intellectual filth in kind. Additionally, it is past time for us to note that free speech is not much compromised in Germany, a place where spreading falsehoods has legal consequences.
It is probably too much to hope that the teachers targeted here are well enough educated to throw this trash into the recycling. Some wealthy endowments are needed to counteract this intellectual filth in kind. Additionally, it is past time for us to note that free speech is not much compromised in Germany, a place where spreading falsehoods has legal consequences.
19
So the denaturing of truth continues apace.
Simple facts like CO2's characteristics as a greenhouse gas are discounted along with the long trail of evidence supporting current climate knowledge.
This hesitation in the presence of clear factual knowledge only slows our progress toward action or adaptation to the rapidly changing temperature, humidity, and weather regimes now upon us.
It also makes for fact denial generally and enables the brave new world of post-Orwellian politics.
Simple facts like CO2's characteristics as a greenhouse gas are discounted along with the long trail of evidence supporting current climate knowledge.
This hesitation in the presence of clear factual knowledge only slows our progress toward action or adaptation to the rapidly changing temperature, humidity, and weather regimes now upon us.
It also makes for fact denial generally and enables the brave new world of post-Orwellian politics.
12
While they're at it, why not have a Flat Earth and set π = 3. Life will be so much easier. Makin Amerika Grate Agin.
258
Well most of them deny evolution, so the flat earth theory would fit right in there.
18
We have common core standards for English language arts and mathematics. The time has come for us to add science to this list. Our young people need to be taught the scientific method of thinking so they don't fall for such obvious propaganda.
210
The Next Generation Science Standards have been adopted by 19 states and DC. They advocate for the teaching of three dimensions of science, Disciplinary Core Ideas, Science and Engineering Practices and Crosscutting Concepts. Teaching the scientific consensus of climate change is prominent in these standards. Having students back claims with evidence and tie them together with reasoning is a major part of how science is to be taught when using NGSS.
5
We do have the Next Generation Science Standards. They include eight science practices that are intended to promote such critical thinking.
3
Several organizations including the The National Association of Science Teachers (they are quoted in the article) have come up with a rigorous set of national science standards called the NGSS (Next Generation Science Standards). Like the common core, it was a state led effort.
For more on the standards....
https://www.nextgenscience.org/
For more on the standards....
https://www.nextgenscience.org/
1
The right wing is very well organized and well funded to use think tanks, lobbyists, Fox News and other publications to influence public opinion and achieve it's aims. It aligns big money with religious fundamentalism. It uses various techniques and money to influence state and local officeholders.
The Gop rw makes outlandish notions seem plausible to many voters. The opposition isn't strong enough. Do the Dems have anything comparable on their side in money or organized focus? Do any progressive, liberal organizations?
The Gop rw makes outlandish notions seem plausible to many voters. The opposition isn't strong enough. Do the Dems have anything comparable on their side in money or organized focus? Do any progressive, liberal organizations?
24
"A lie can travel halfway around the world before the truth can get its boots on."
8
They have the truth.
1
Yes there are some very good, objective think tanks (e.g., Brookings). The problem, however, is that the right-wing funded ones such as Hoover, Heritage, Heartland, American Enterprise, are given prominence which they absolutely do not deserve. They are nothing but propaganda organs for right-wing ideology and should be treated as such. Unfortunately news organizations such as NPR regularly have them on as commentators without sufficient rebuttal, and even the so-called liberal news stations such as MSNBC give them undeserved air time.
4
"Ladies and gentleman, in this corner weighting in at incalculable greed, immorality, and shortsightedness and providing no scientific evidence that climate science is a political hoax is the president, the majority in both houses of congress, and 45 percent of misguided American adults. And ladies and gentlemen, in this corner providing devastating scientific evidence and physical reality are virtually every climatologist, geological scientist,meteorologist and Mother nature. Present score: humanity is losing--badly, is down for the count, and will likely lose on a technical knock out."
97
Very clever, thanks!
2
The discovery of vital, previously unknown facts about the earth tends to be controversial. Even today there are those who insist that the earth is flat. Climate change supporters tend to be insistent about their beliefs and climate change deniers tend to be equally insistent about theirs even though the matter is effectively settled.
Whether it makes sense to debate climate change is a reasonable question. If climate change is treated as beyond debate, any arguments might be dismissed as nonsense, in the nature of flat earth believers..
In short, it is worth considering whether debate of a scientific certainty is constructive.
Whether it makes sense to debate climate change is a reasonable question. If climate change is treated as beyond debate, any arguments might be dismissed as nonsense, in the nature of flat earth believers..
In short, it is worth considering whether debate of a scientific certainty is constructive.
7
And let's debate whether cigarettes cause cancer. Really?
19
Except that science IS debate, over time. You want to know a dirty little secret about science? if you want to really make it in science, prove an accepted theory wrong. There are many examples of this happening in science. A new idea is proposed based on long hours of work, experiment, observation, tabulation of data, rethinking, and reworking it. The idea is ridiculed by those who have invested their lives in an established idea that is undercut by the new idea. But the new idea prevails because . . . it is true. So if the climate change deniers think climate change is happening "naturally," apart from human impact, all they have to do is weather the ridicule, so to speak, and prove their theory. I doubt very much that is going to happen, but we'll see.
8
An argument for false equivalency?
4
If 30% of science teachers (American science teachers) believe climate change is not caused by human activity, the problem is far deeper than The Heartland Institut, arguably more serious than climate change.
395
Easy to say, Glenn. What do you suppose the problem is?
As awful as Heartland is, and has been objectively shown to have been (Cigarettes? They're great! Have some more.), I take it as more of an archetype of the propaganda operation run in this country by the Rich and the Right.
Despite calls for access to evidence or debate about climate change, Heartland doesn't care even a little.
What Heartland does is what Republicans do: they sew doubt.
All they want is to raise enough questions in easily led minds that anyone who tries to say anything conclusive about the "other" side is immediately distrusted and discredited.
In this way, Heartland manages to apply labels that would be appropriate to itself to every one else on the field.
We're at the center of a perfect storm at the moment: public education has been discredited and is actively being dismantled; "critical thinking' has been identified as a tool of the Devil (go Texas!); religion and creation science have co-opted the tools of legitimate research and, with an audience of frightened, ill-prepared, perpetually riled up and angry people, any attempt by real scientists to discuss evidence only increases the bias against them.
Those on the Right love to cite the Founders, most often in Bowdlerized form. The part about "an informed public" being particularly important, they have taken great pains, and have had much success at creating ignorance, prejudice, and fear, the foundation of all their recent triumphs.
As awful as Heartland is, and has been objectively shown to have been (Cigarettes? They're great! Have some more.), I take it as more of an archetype of the propaganda operation run in this country by the Rich and the Right.
Despite calls for access to evidence or debate about climate change, Heartland doesn't care even a little.
What Heartland does is what Republicans do: they sew doubt.
All they want is to raise enough questions in easily led minds that anyone who tries to say anything conclusive about the "other" side is immediately distrusted and discredited.
In this way, Heartland manages to apply labels that would be appropriate to itself to every one else on the field.
We're at the center of a perfect storm at the moment: public education has been discredited and is actively being dismantled; "critical thinking' has been identified as a tool of the Devil (go Texas!); religion and creation science have co-opted the tools of legitimate research and, with an audience of frightened, ill-prepared, perpetually riled up and angry people, any attempt by real scientists to discuss evidence only increases the bias against them.
Those on the Right love to cite the Founders, most often in Bowdlerized form. The part about "an informed public" being particularly important, they have taken great pains, and have had much success at creating ignorance, prejudice, and fear, the foundation of all their recent triumphs.
3
You don't get it do you? I agree in principle with your concern, but in fact we are facing the sixth extinction. As was noted in last week's variety of articles, among other things, climate change is a threat multiplier, and every other issue is exacerbated by it.
We are earth's apex predator, and we are headed for real, nondeniable disaster, as is the destiny of all who think they need not heed the rules of reality.
We are earth's apex predator, and we are headed for real, nondeniable disaster, as is the destiny of all who think they need not heed the rules of reality.
1
That's true.
It's more important for people to understand the method of science, than it is for them to believe in the "correct" answer on any issue, even climate change.
If you don't understand the method of science, you'll never be able to figure out whether the earth is warming, or what to do about it.
FWIW, when I went to college, even the engineering majors had to take a year of humanities. And we didn't memorize names. We sat around a conference table, reading Socrates, Dostoyevsky, Aquinis and beat poetry, with the Jesuit high school graduates arguing it out with the Jewish Communists from New York City.
How did the Greeks figure out that the earth revolved around the sun anyway? They didn't look up the answer in the back of the book.
If you want to understand how to figure out the truth, in science or anything else, I'd recommend that you start with John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, readily available on the Internet.
It's more important for people to understand the method of science, than it is for them to believe in the "correct" answer on any issue, even climate change.
If you don't understand the method of science, you'll never be able to figure out whether the earth is warming, or what to do about it.
FWIW, when I went to college, even the engineering majors had to take a year of humanities. And we didn't memorize names. We sat around a conference table, reading Socrates, Dostoyevsky, Aquinis and beat poetry, with the Jesuit high school graduates arguing it out with the Jewish Communists from New York City.
How did the Greeks figure out that the earth revolved around the sun anyway? They didn't look up the answer in the back of the book.
If you want to understand how to figure out the truth, in science or anything else, I'd recommend that you start with John Stuart Mill's On Liberty, readily available on the Internet.
Whether climate change is natural or manmade is a red herring. Tornados, hurricanes, floods, droughts, and earthquakes are all natural, but we do not like any of them and spend a lot of money to guard against them or mitigate their effects. Nobody says that because tornadoes are natural, we should not bother with cyclone cellars. Nobody says that because earthquakes are natural we should not build more expensively where earthquakes are more likely.
We do not like what climate change has in store for us, so we should plan and spend to slow it down, reverse it if possible, and prepare in advance to mitigate its effects. We should also know much more about what it is likely to do to and for us. We should be spending much more to understand in detail what is going on, with more than just a few researchers collecting current and historical information. We should be putting the sorts of resources into this as we put into cancer research or development of new crops and pesticides and such.
It used to be that nobody worried about air quality. Measures to improve air quality involve limiting personal freedom when this freedom is exercised with pollution as a byproduct. Such limitations are becoming life and death matters in Chinese and Indian cities as the air becomes increasingly unhealthy. If the earth lets things get to this point it will be too late.
We do not like what climate change has in store for us, so we should plan and spend to slow it down, reverse it if possible, and prepare in advance to mitigate its effects. We should also know much more about what it is likely to do to and for us. We should be spending much more to understand in detail what is going on, with more than just a few researchers collecting current and historical information. We should be putting the sorts of resources into this as we put into cancer research or development of new crops and pesticides and such.
It used to be that nobody worried about air quality. Measures to improve air quality involve limiting personal freedom when this freedom is exercised with pollution as a byproduct. Such limitations are becoming life and death matters in Chinese and Indian cities as the air becomes increasingly unhealthy. If the earth lets things get to this point it will be too late.
84
Sir:
Unless you have just returned to planet earth from a space voyage, you are missing a few points and the only red herrings are being peddled down the street at the Naysay Shop.
Is climate change natural? Well, insofar as humans are part of nature, then the answer is of course that it is.
Is climate change man made? Well, insosfar almost 100% of climate scientists attribute current global warming to the increases of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere, and furthermore, attribute these increases in gases that lead to global warming to human activity, then it is.
We know already what to do and have not done it. We have been told repeatedly that humans have to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Oh!, and coincidentally, it might help to reduce the number of humans consuming those fuels too.
There is no other remedy. We cannot play now and expect to make it all good later. Later is already too late.
Unless you have just returned to planet earth from a space voyage, you are missing a few points and the only red herrings are being peddled down the street at the Naysay Shop.
Is climate change natural? Well, insofar as humans are part of nature, then the answer is of course that it is.
Is climate change man made? Well, insosfar almost 100% of climate scientists attribute current global warming to the increases of CO2 and other gasses in the atmosphere, and furthermore, attribute these increases in gases that lead to global warming to human activity, then it is.
We know already what to do and have not done it. We have been told repeatedly that humans have to reduce the consumption of fossil fuels. Oh!, and coincidentally, it might help to reduce the number of humans consuming those fuels too.
There is no other remedy. We cannot play now and expect to make it all good later. Later is already too late.
13
Do we know what it is going to do to us? Who cares? How bad do you want bad to be? Maybe it would help to ask what it is going to do to every other living species except humans, insofar as we humans are not alone on the planet. (Think major extinction event..., which probably includes human extinction since we are dependent on so many, many other species for our survival.)
This situation does not require more attempts to prove that it is happening. It is just too late. The doubters of the world have won and we all, they and the rest of us, have lost. The political class is unable to act. The religious class continues to tweet that the benign being/beings in the clouds won't let anything bad happen to his/their special creatures, so that's covered us (Whew!)! The rest of us needed a playbook about 15 years ago, with rules what to do and what not to do, and there was no way that was going to be forthcoming, not then and not now.
If you want to know how to act and prepare, better not purchase any beach front land..., for starters. Secondly, you might want to only have one child, or maybe none. You might also want to read the article in yesterday's NYT (As Rising Seas Erode Shorelines, Tasmania Shows What Can Be Lost).
This situation does not require more attempts to prove that it is happening. It is just too late. The doubters of the world have won and we all, they and the rest of us, have lost. The political class is unable to act. The religious class continues to tweet that the benign being/beings in the clouds won't let anything bad happen to his/their special creatures, so that's covered us (Whew!)! The rest of us needed a playbook about 15 years ago, with rules what to do and what not to do, and there was no way that was going to be forthcoming, not then and not now.
If you want to know how to act and prepare, better not purchase any beach front land..., for starters. Secondly, you might want to only have one child, or maybe none. You might also want to read the article in yesterday's NYT (As Rising Seas Erode Shorelines, Tasmania Shows What Can Be Lost).
1
Whether the current climate change is caused by man is NOT a red herring. It is essential to understand that it has been established to a reasonable scientific certainty that it is being caused by burning fossil fuels. Only by understanding this can we know what to do to slow it down or stop it.
In 2014 the National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, the Royal Society, published a paper summarizing the state if the science. It can be found on line. It is essential reading. I quote from its Forward:
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certainthanever, basedonmanylinesofevidence,thathumansarechangingEarth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes. The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered. Scienti c evidence continues to be gathered around the world, and assumptions and ndings about climate change are continually analysed and tested. Some areas of active debate and ongoing research include the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming, estimates of how much warming to expect in the future, and the connections between climate change and extreme weather events."
In 2014 the National Academy of Sciences and its British counterpart, the Royal Society, published a paper summarizing the state if the science. It can be found on line. It is essential reading. I quote from its Forward:
"CLIMATE CHANGE IS ONE OF THE DEFINING ISSUES OF OUR TIME. It is now more certainthanever, basedonmanylinesofevidence,thathumansarechangingEarth’s climate. The atmosphere and oceans have warmed, accompanied by sea-level rise, a strong decline in Arctic sea ice, and other climate-related changes. The evidence is clear. However, due to the nature of science, not every single detail is ever totally settled or completely certain. Nor has every pertinent question yet been answered. Scienti c evidence continues to be gathered around the world, and assumptions and ndings about climate change are continually analysed and tested. Some areas of active debate and ongoing research include the link between ocean heat content and the rate of warming, estimates of how much warming to expect in the future, and the connections between climate change and extreme weather events."
8
Big tobacco was an early customer, back when Heartland's charming web tagline was Solutions To Every Policy Problem. (you can see it on their site as archived on the Wayback Machine, along with the site's "Smoker's Lounge" when they were denying the harm of secondhand smoke.)
Tag line changed, but not the stink. And the funders are generally better hidden now by Donor's Trust and other dark-money groups the zillionaire libertarian families spend on.