Comment on Not 100% sure? by stefanthedenier

January 20, 2012, 7:00 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Fred Moolten

$

0

0

I’m the only one sure what I say; because I use the laws of physics for guidance. THE LAWS OF PHYSICS DON’T WORK ON 90% POSSIBILITY. When any Swindler states: 90% possibility; for him /her the other 10% are only important – as a ”back-door exit”

If it can happen – it will happen. But GLOBAL warming cannot happen; because my formula and the laws of physics say so. 100% proven, guaranteed. People that are avoiding my website / my work – ”THEY ARE 100% SURE THAT THEY ARE WRONG”!!! People that are silencing / ridiculing me – are the ones that they can see that I have real proofs; but differ 100% from their own knowledge. May the truth win.

---

Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

January 20, 2012, 7:04 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by mike

≪ Previous: Comment on Not 100% sure? by stefanthedenier

$

0

0

Fred,

It is dishonest to imply that there is some equivalence between the Creationism controversy and the debate (yes there is still one) over doomsday climate change, or whatever you all are calling it today. But it doesn’t stop you people from playing that fiddle at every opportunity. So you don’t talk policy with the kids. Do you just tell them the world is going to burn up, if they don’t change their parents profligate ways, and leave it at that? That’s what they told my first grade son, a couple of years ago. Got me to thinking, and changing schools. Found one less expensive, too.

Comment on Climate Classroom by mike

January 20, 2012, 7:18 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Fred Moolten

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

$

0

0

CNB,

Although not in a conventional positioning, let me offer a further thought on one of your comments.

You say, “There is no serious scientific debate over…the historical temperature record…We would do a serious dis-service to students to do otherwise.” (yr Jan 20, 1:40 pm)

CNB, you’re a teacher–a science teacher–I gather from your comments on this thread. And, as a teacher, I think we’d both agree, you have a duty, if an ethical person (of the old-fashioned bourgeois morality stripe, that is), to teach children in your care science within the context of critical thinking. And, in that regard, ethical science instruction cannot properly take the form of indoctrination of the kids, at the point of a knowledge-spike in the back of the head, with science factoids and pseudo-factoids selected to advance the latest lefty, brave-new-world hustle (incidentally, in my youth, it was the “conservatives” who were doing the indoctrinating–no more palatable than the left, I might add). Again, I’m sure we agree, right CNB?

Now, you’ve declared rather boldly, CNB, that there is no “serious scientific controversy” with regard to the historical temperature record (see above quote). Subsequently, Roger Caiazza immediately challenged your contention that the historical temperature record known and that knowledge is blessedly free of any serious scientific controversy (his January 20, 1:57 pm). To my disappointment you did not respond to Roger.

Please allow me pose Roger’s challenge myself. But let me do so in the guise of student in your class:

“Mr./Ms. CNB, I don’t get it! How can people know what the temperature was in the whole world tens and hundreds and millions of years ago to tenths of a degree? I mean, for some of that time, there weren’t even thermometers. And even today, there aren’t measuring devices in much of the world. Indeed, there weren’t even people around a while ago to take the temperature. So again, Mr./Ms. CNB, how can we be sure of the historical global temperature record, to within TENTHS OF A DEGREE AND WITH NO SERIOUS SCIENTIFIC CONTROVERSY IN THE MATTER? ”

So what’s your answer to this imaginary student of yours, as a science teacher, CNB?

Comment on Climate Classroom by Fred Moolten

January 20, 2012, 7:19 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by mike

$

0

0

. “Do you just tell them the world is going to burn up, if they don’t change their parents profligate ways, and leave it at that? That’s what they told my first grade son”

Don – If that happened, you had a right to be incensed. I can’t see teaching climate science, even if it’s done correctly, to first graders, and I can’t see teaching it in a biased manner to anyone. On the other hand, I also suspect that some parents have misunderstood what students were actually told – I’m not suggesting that was the case with your son, but I’m sure it happens.

Students, teachers, and parents all have responsibilities, but I just don’t think that means ignoring an important scientific topic that can be discussed at a level appropriate for the students who are being taught.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

January 20, 2012, 7:27 pm

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Fred Moolten

$

0

0

Very liberal of you, Fred. But you have completely avoided explaining why you people keep trying to equate the religious folks faith in Creationism with other folks skepticism of the CAGW doomsday dogma. Why do you do that, Fred? Do you understand the question?

Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

January 21, 2012, 3:48 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Don Monfort

$

0

0

nc writes “. Oh where did those 50 million climate refuges go?”

(Tongue in cheek). The 50 million climate refugees did not go anywhere. The genius who made this statement just got the sign wrong. It wasn’t that 50 million people left low lying areas near the sea, which were supposed to get flooded. 50 million more people have moved there, because it is a lovely place to live!

By the way, I loved the rest of your questions.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

January 21, 2012, 4:04 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

“They claim that conservative white males are most likely to be climate sceptics. Like that’s a bad thing?”

Older CWM, particularly

And no, it’s a just an observation, but an important one, but it point to a rejection of the science, which has less to do with science than it does with a certain worldview.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

January 21, 2012, 4:07 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

$

0

0

Anteros, I’ve read the paragraph multiple times, and I’m confident about what I said. However, I do understand the interpretation you advance. We could simplify the relevant sentence to:

the latter implies certain principles are in doubt

If we do, it definitely supports your interpretation. However, there’s a simple alternative. When one refers to “the controversy,” especially in the phrase, “teach the controversy,” it almost always refers to a bogus “controversy” generated by bad science (often said to be dishonest).

Given that, the sentence you quote would simply mean Fred Moolten is saying there is no single, large, fake controversy when it comes to global warming. In other words, he’s saying it’s not a situation where one side is completely wrong and basing everything upon obviously invalid work while the other side is doing science as normal. Instead, it’s a complicated situation where many different positions are held on many different issues.

I find that far more likely than the interpretation you advance. The interpretation you advance requires Fred Moolten be doing a number of ridiculous things. First, he must be intentionally comparing people who disagree with him to Creationists (capitalization is important here). Second, he must be saying there is no doubt “anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions have significant climate impact” even though “significant” is a vague word. Third, he must be saying there is no question that impact “must be evaluated for its potential consequences” even though “must” requires a morale judgment.

I have a negative view of Moolten, but I don’t think he is willing to smear people via guilt by association. I don’t think he’s incoherent enough to use “significant” without understanding what it means. I don’t think he’s self-centered enough to think his morale beliefs are such that they can be stated as absolute truths.

I obviously cannot prove my interpretation is correct (and perhaps I was overly strident in my earlier comment), but as long as their is a valid, alternative interpretation, I will not assume Fred Moolten is being a complete and total nincompoop.

---

Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

January 21, 2012, 4:11 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

To be fair Anteros, Fred Moolten’s response does make your interpretation slightly more plausible (he didn’t dispute it though he could easily have). I chalk that up to him wanting to “let readers decide for themselves.”

Again, I just don’t believe he is irrational or idiotic enough to have said what you think he said.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

January 21, 2012, 4:12 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Girma

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Brandon Shollenberger

$

0

0

Chief Hydrologist -

Some fascinating thoughts.

I agree entirely about the catastrophist mentality, and have something of a passion for unearthing it in the common psyche, if not down in its evolutionary and biological roots.
Armaggedonology – a noble study because it promises to remove that which prevents the experiencing of existential joy and awe. Apocalypsters have a layer that once peeled away can reveal a human being’s natural confidence in today – and tomorrow.

Something I’m yet to see is the essential link between the dooming and a statist liberal agenda. I see a correlation and some obvious overlaps in emotional disposition, but the connection for me remains tenuous. Perhaps because my perspective has always been essentially non (or ‘a’) political.

Otherwise, I concur with your sentiments.

And FWIW I’m having a particularly splendid time because I finally got around to something this morning that I have been procrastinating about for forever and a day.
Which somehow reinforces my happy wonderment that there is something, rather than nothing.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Girma

January 21, 2012, 4:17 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

$

0

0

Where is IPCC’s acclerated warming?????

Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

January 21, 2012, 4:26 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Girma

$

0

0

Yes, the catastrophist mentality is apparent-

…. a carbon tax will destroy the economy
……greenshirts and environmentalists want to destroy modern civilisation and make us live in caves.
…..it’s all part of a socialist plot to take over the world

etc etc.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

January 21, 2012, 4:31 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Pekka Pirilä

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

$

0

0

Girma, Have you seen

http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/01/new-noaa-data-debunks-establishment-science-msm-claim-of-dangerous-accelerating-warming.html

Also, I wonder how many others are fololwing, with interest, on a daily basis

http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/execute.csh?amsutemps+002

It will be interesting to see how the Jan 2012 global temperature anomaly turns out. Jan 2011 was 0.0 C, and if the current trend contiunes until the end of the month, the anomaly could be negative.

Which is precisley what you are saying. There is absolutely no evidence that CO2 causes global warming. Assuming cliamte sensitivity is positive, the recent observed data shows that it is indistinguishable from 0.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Pekka Pirilä

January 21, 2012, 4:37 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by capt. dallas

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim Cripwell

$

0

0

One should not read only the sentence after the one quoted first but also those before it. Doing that it seems clear that Fred opposes taking up a simplistic form of controversy, where the alternatives are essentially <i>yes, there is AGW and it presents a serious risk</i> and <i>no, there's no AGW to justify any attention at all</i>. He is explicitly writing that there are controversies at more detailed level and those should be discussed. I think that very many people from both sides agree up to that point, but are disagree strongly on, how that observation should be formulated in practice. To me this seems to be a very difficult issue. While I'm fully confident in the validity of the understanding of basic phenomena related to climate change, I'm also certain that many teachers would present the issue in a way that I don't accept even when their presentation includes that information that I consider solid.

Comment on Climate Classroom by capt. dallas

January 21, 2012, 4:45 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by William Martin

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Pekka Pirilä

$

0

0

honkies? I would say more like milquetoasts, crackers versus milquetoasts

---

Comment on Climate Classroom by William Martin

January 21, 2012, 4:46 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by capt. dallas

$

0

0

an interesting post, to which I would add a few comments.
as a retired australian teacher, I believe I can say with accuracy that primary school students do not have sufficient skills to tell the difference between propaganda and science. lambs to the slaughter in my book.
secondly, the ‘science’ behind the global warming doomsday scenarios is being refuted on a near daily basis. as I understand it, none of the IPCC predictions to date have been accurate.
thirdly, if I lived in the USA, I would be more concerned about preparing my habitation for extreme weather and geological events (earthquakes, volcanism, tornadoes, blizzards.and suchlike).
nice to see only a few personal attacks/insults on this post.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

January 21, 2012, 4:52 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by William Martin

$

0

0

“as I understand it, none of the IPCC predictions to date have been accurate.”

Great little qualifier, can mean anything from, ‘I’ve never bothered to check but I’ll say it anyway’, to ‘I read that on a blog somewhere and that’s good enough for me’.

Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

January 21, 2012, 4:53 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by markus

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Michael

$

0

0

Brandon -

My interpretation (which still seems self-evident) I feel comfortable with because in many ways it is actually not that contentious. Fred is merely saying that most experts agree about the basics – that greenhouse gases have an impact and that this deserves some research. He does say that – and says that it is wrong to cast doubt on this consensus. There is no controversy about it.

But Fred takes this uncontroversial position [that the basics are agreed by the experts] and then exaggerates it to the point where it becomes false.

In my quote of Fred’s paragraph I highlighted three things that caused me to (profoundly) disagree – in two combinations. The first was that there is agreement about there being significant impacts from anthro’ greenhouse emissions – there isn’t. Many think that the impacts are less than significant. Secondly, that there is a consensus that we must evaluate the potential consequences [which as we see, means evaluating potential negative consequences, which in turn means imagining consequences that have no justifiable reality - once set up with this frame of reference, an organisation like the IPCC will find what it wants to find]

On the back of those two misrepresentations is carried a whole misplaced menagerie of ‘shoulds’ and ‘oughts’. There is a subtle, but definite agenda (based on a belief about the future) that I think needs to be questioned – vigorously.

Fred states publicly that he believes there is a danger – a danger from greenhouse gas emissions. This belief is what underlies his ‘interpretation’ of there being no controversy, because that is what he believes. He has foisted this belief on the world at large, which is what people do when they say ‘the science is settled’. Fred wants the ‘unsettled’ bits shipped out to the margins so that the central thesis [emissions significant/consequences bad] becomes yet more established. And he wants to start this process with 12 year olds.

I worry when any set of beliefs are treated as beyond questioning, and particularly in a primitive and immature subject like climate science.

Apologies for such a long reply..

Comment on Climate Classroom by markus

January 21, 2012, 5:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by JCH

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by Anteros

$

0

0

Many areas of science are strewn with controversial areas (including evolutionary theories), but the phrase “teach the controversy” to me betokens an ideological agenda that misrepresents the nature of controversy.

Thanks for the critique. Rereading the text it seems indisputable to me that Fred has himself intentionally attempted to misrepresent the nature of the controversy, or he simply doesn’t believe there is one.

Some inference can be drawn about his predilection to bias. Why did he bracket (including evolutionary theories), he seems content to insist there is some controversy in evolution but not in Climasology (made up word).

But I agree, The “controversy” should be taught in Ethics not science.

From what I can deduce from the current discipline of public discourse over the matter, there will be no option but for the episode of AGW to be included in psychology papers.

Comment on Climate Classroom by JCH

January 21, 2012, 5:02 am

≫ Next: Comment on Climate Classroom by Jim D

≪ Previous: Comment on Climate Classroom by markus

$

0

0

Shaft used my favorite: wise caucasian.