Another couple inches of snow, another school closure day.
I blame global warming.
Speaking of which, there's the controversy over the Federal Way School Board's decision to insist that Al Gore's movie Inconvenient Truth be shown only when it is balanced with an alternative viewpoint.
Naturally, hysterical left-wingers everywhere are claiming that Federal Way is "banning" the movie, which it is not.
The P-I editorial board says: "Teach the science". I agree. And for all my teasing of the mostly non-scientifically trained liberals who have zealously adopted global warming in lieu of other religions, I'm genuinely open-minded about climate change, am not convinced that this is a settled issue, and think that a variety of reasonable scientific perspectives should be taught. But showing partisan political propaganda movies is not a good substitute for teaching science.
In the meantime leftists met in Memphis to formulate strategies for re-introducing the so-called "fairness doctrine". It can't be emphasized enough--these people do not want opposing points of view heard in this country.
http://www.aim.org/special_report/5160_0_8_0_C/
If there is an ideology that wants to "ban" anything, it is the left. Like the communists they love, the left will not allow dissent once they are in power.
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 10:41 AMIs the district saying it doesn't trust its own science teachers to analyze the movie with their students in a fair and balanced manner, without a written rule requiring an opposing viewpoint?
If so, wouldn't it be better to fire the problem teachers instead of create a policy that opens the school board up to nationwide ridicule?
Posted by: Measure on January 16, 2007 10:55 AM"Most journalists and pundits have limited knowledge of science; as a result, they tend to pick whichever science best suits their political prejudices."
Common sense in the warming debate (Registration required)
"Censorship never solves anything. It only creates more ignorance and a lack of vital information."
Fair enough - all sides should be presented. After all, we certainly need "vital information." That's at least a starting point for determining policy. Without some certainty as to the facts, we would be blind in developing policy.
Of course, even if people were to agree on the facts, there can be a legitimate difference of opinion on what policy would be the most effective and reasonable solution. We certainly wouldn't want to jump to an ideological solution without regard to the facts.
Heck continues:
"Even if global warming is a farce ... are we really hurting anything by reducing our consumption of natural resources?"
Reduce by 1% or 50%? Reduce temporarily or permanently? Reduce on a per capita basis or a net total? Reduce voluntarily or as a mandatory government dictate? Reduce all consumption of all natural resources, or just some? Reduce by what methods? Reduce by tax penalties or through market-based solutions?
We DO need BOTH sides - in order not only to assess the problem, but to develop a possible solution that is reality-based, not ideology-based.
Posted by: Steve Beren on January 16, 2007 11:16 AMThe simple solution is to disallow all materials in schools that are not directly pertinent to objective learning. Much of what even passes for good objective science video, is a terrible substitute for actively engaged lecturing and independent student thought. As I recall from my own school days, when the teacher rolled the movie projector into the room, it was going to be a slow day, where the teacher had something else they had to be doing. Rather than actually teach, now it is even easier, the teacher simply plops in a DVD or VHS tape, and the students sit there in rapture, just like they do in front of the TV at home. This is not learning. And it is especially not learning when the video in question is a slick propaganda piece from Al Gore, and not even something that objectively addresses the scientific issues at hand. Furthermore, should high school students be focused on Global Warming? Even if we grant Al Gore that Global Warming is a certainty with all of the impending doom he claims, the topic is far more appropriate for a college level class where students might begin to establish their career path. High School is still a place where students are polishing off the fundamentals of learning and preparing themselves for the more open and self directed pace of University scholarship. And given the sorry state of kids in high school and the math WASL pass rates, it's quite obvious that students should be spending more time on actual math and less time watching Al Gore's lies. But let's be frank, the Left is in to Al Gore for the indoctrination benefits for creating good little Marxist youth.
For a good read on the importance of lecturing, and on many other good essays on what is wrong with learning today, go here.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 11:44 AM"Censorship never solves anything. It only creates more ignorance and a lack of vital information."
Gee, that sounds like the exact argument that the Discovery Institute has been saying for years about the scientific facts which support Intelligent Design and refute portions of Darwinian Evolution. Why is the MSM not screaming about censorship of facts in this debate? The purpose of science is to follow the facts, where ever they lead - not to only teach those parts which support your particular opinions!
Posted by: suzihomemaker on January 16, 2007 12:06 PMThe fact of the mater is that the current scientific consensus with GW, like evolution, is that it is real. Yah there are a few scientists who disagree, but they are in the minority. If we are to teach the controversy in this case so to speak then why not do it with all science.
moon landing real vs moon landing fake
gravity as a separate force, vs gravity as electro-magnetism
earth solid vs hollow earth
astronomy vs astrology
quantum indeterminism vs the natural ontological attitude
spherical vs hyperbolic universe
I could go one, but the point is that understanding even the threshold argument for many of these (well maybe not the moon landing) is beyond most if not all high schoolers. Hell I would challenge most people to explain how endogenous retrovirus provide evidence for evolution and any possible critiques or the exact mechanics of why methane is a greater greenhouse threat then CO2.
With both GW and evolution the controversy consists of over 95% of scientist in the disciple who accept them and less than 5% who don't. In science lets teach what the scientist believe and not the hunches of a bunch of armchair climatologists.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 12:07 PMThe final way was via Global Warming / Climate Change. The position of their experts was that ALL credible scientists affirm that climate change is caused by humans, and there is NO other valid explanation. Al Gore was featured, and one of his first quotes was, "The debate is over."
So there you have it folks. The debate is over. Al Gore says so. Who are we to argue with the inventor of the Internet???
Posted by: Seabecker on January 16, 2007 12:10 PMAren't these people something?
Posted by: Bill Cruchon on January 16, 2007 12:14 PMScientists do not have a consensus and if they did, are they correct? These studies by the "scientists" remind me of a lake study done about 20 years ago by a "scientist". The study was to find the problems and then recommend solutions. Well, he found the lake was in good shape, so he came up with 'solutions' to solve a problem that didn't exist.
Like here, the quality of the 'climatologists' technology is not good enough to claim we are going through the big GW. It could just be a small cycle and on top of that, no one can say GW is caused by man. So, there you have it. Al Gore is full of it.
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 12:20 PM"The headline screamed "Disappearing world: Global warming claims tropical island" informing us that for the first time an inhabited island had been deluged by the ocean, due of course to global warming. The story fails to mention that Lohachare Island disappeared 22 years ago, and that the entire region of The Sundarbans is a river delta. It also fails to mention that the disappearance of the island has been attributed to erosion rather than global warming."
...
So much for fair reporting from the MSM.
Posted by: Seabecker on January 16, 2007 12:31 PMYou are factually quite wrong. There is not only 5% of the scientists who disagree. Your total takes into account only a small subset of climate scientists and other scientists from the total population of scientists. You can easily Google to find out why you are wrong, and more about actual climate scientists who disagree with Al Gore's conclusions.
Furthermore, you conflate the issue to try and make your point. Even if we agree 100% that there is GW, the issue is not so much whether or not the earth is warming, but by how much, and what that means. Al Gore's predictions are plugged into computer models that have generated many worst case scenarios that are great scare mongering statistics, but the reality is that no scientist has a very accurate prediction of exactly what will happen and to what degree. And Degree is everything. If I told you that you have a 95% chance of getting into a car accident some time in the next 50 years, would you stop all of your driving? Would you curtail your driving? By how much, and based on what? Would you instead just drive more carefully, or use safer cars, with more airbags, and perhaps a larger car? Or would you want to know the severity of the accident that you were 95% certain to get into?
Degree matters. If Global Warming has only a limited effect due to the poorly understood nature of exactly what will happen in terms of outcomes from any warming, wouldn't it not be more economically prudent to address only the known outcomes or dangers presented by any consequences?
Also of great importance is time scale. 50 years is a long time by most human standards. For many, 50 years will be longer than there time left alive. So is it really prudent or realistic to expect anyone in the latter half of their life to accept a very dubious 50 year disaster scenario as a means for drastically altering their life today? And what of other more serious disasters. We could have a volcanic event, or a meteoric event in the next 50 years that had far, far greater repercussions than anything proposed by Al Gore. And yet we do not agree on exactly how to prepare ourselves for even these known cataclysmic events that have occurred on earth with much greater frequency than Warming cycles through the ages. And time matters also because mitigation for slow onset of global warming related issues would be far different from those brought on quickly. If it takes 50 years for the sea level to rise by five feet, that's quite a long time for humans to adapt. Shorelines erode slowly. Some houses even know fall off of eroding cliffs. But the pace is slow enough, that insurance, and better understanding of erosion, etc. does not warrant hysterical reaction. Humans are incredibly adaptable. And only a small percentage of humans live so close to the shore as to be directly affected by a smaller than Al Gore doomsday prediction in the rise of sea levels.
Before you get all worked up in the hysteria, think about the degree to which any problem demands a response. And make sure that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that people absolutely must take immediate action. Otherwise, you are simply another person crying wolf.
My prediction is that within five to ten years, Al Gore will have been completely marginalized because there's a very real chance and high percentage chance at that, in which not a whole lot will have changed in a decade. And thus the amount of AL Gore doom and gloom that will have to occur over a shorter period, will appear even less likely.
But hey, for starters, go start Googling and reading those who challenge Al Gore. Why limit yourself only to the opinions of those who agree? Are you really foolish and naive enough to think that there are not very sound arguments against something as abstract and complicated as the totality of earth's temperature and the time frame of any effects of its change?
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 12:33 PMHere is a nice source with what some real climatologists say
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
And swatter, not really sure what your talking about with the lake thing, but check out the above source for plenty of evidence suggesting consensus.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 12:40 PMWhy is a school district obligated to show a mainstream movie in the classroom anyhow? It isn't as if this was an obscure, hard to get a hold of movie - or some classic, obscure, out of print teaching aid. Its a goddamned movie!
Posted by: ALP on January 16, 2007 12:48 PMPersonally I have not bought into any hysteria. I don't think we need to shut down society and go home or anything like that. I believe that we need to simply start investing in non-greenhouse emitting technologies. I like your analogy of a potential car accident. I have used a similar one involving fire. The chance that my house will burn down in my lifetime is very small. However, I spend a fair amount each year on insurance. I do the same thing for my car. I also try to prevent accidents and fires though living and driving safely. We need to do the same thing with climate change. The rational thing to do with a potential threat of this magnitude is to try and prevent or mitigate it.
The auto age did not come about solely because of private industry. Many technologies were developed with public funding, the public built the roads, and the public helps to acquire the oil. Not to go off topic, but security in the mideast is important primarily because that's were our oil comes form and we need the oil. You can say the same thing for jet-travel, the internet, modern medicine ,etc. Our society is at its best when the government uses public funds to develop and nurture technologies and innovations that are then adapted and marketed by the private sector.
I want to see the same thing for technologies to combat global warming. I have now doubt that we can create and deploy modes of transport and power generation that do not emit greenhouse gases in the next 10-20 years. Things like air travel may take more time, but we can get rid of most our emissions if we simply try. There are also technologies on the horizon to actually remove greenhouse gases from the atmosphere. While 50 years is a long time, our choices in the next few years will determine how those 50 turn out. One responsibility of a citizen is to preserve prosperity for the future. Whether it is fighting fascism in WW2 or protecting the environment the responsibility and obligation is the same. The nice thing is that even if GW turns out to be overblown, we have clean air, no dependence on foreign oil, a vibrant new economy, etc. Seems like good insurance to me.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 12:57 PMThere has been some vetting of the OISM list, but even if we grant that half of the list is fictitious, that would still leave many actual scientists that do not agree with Al Gore's conclusions. Surely you don't believe that every single scientist or even non-scientist who does not agree with Al Gore is on the big oil payroll? Could it be that some people are simply less trusting of detailed predictions of the future about something as complex as the earth's temperature? It must be pretty easy for people to call you up and get you to give money for some dubious cause. What's your number?
Not to mention, what of this list. A Union of Concerned Scientists for Global Warming, that anyone can join.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 12:59 PMI am sure the are some scientists and a few climatologists who honestly doubt GW. There are also some scientists who doubt genetics. There is actually a pretty healthy debate ging on regarding gravity, but I don't hear a cry to teach that controversy.
Just because there is a vocal minority on a subject does not mean that there opinion belongs in science class. If they can muster up evidence and convince the scientific community of their view then sure, but until then these debates do not belong in school classrooms. Time does not allow for all theories. In science lets teach the scientific method and scientific consensus until that consensus changes.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 01:08 PMThe analogy is appropriate since it takes a "scientist" who has an axe to grind or a desire to effect changes and puts him in a situation where there is no problem or proof or evidence or data to justify his corrections.
The same goes for the 'climatologists' who don't even have the technology to make the claims the world is ending soon and it is caused by man. As scientists they are supposed to temper their research with the quality of their technology.
Posted by: swatter on January 16, 2007 01:12 PMIf you can prove that Global Warming is real, and that there is cause for future concern due to that warming that is so great, it warrants massive economic shifts today, and do it to the same degree that we know scientifically that the earth is not flat, you'll win the Nobel Prize. Good luck.
If the weather must be addressed, then suffice it to say it's warmer, and there are conflicting arguments over what is causing that warmth.
Has the theory that the sun has caused the warmer temps been disproven by that huge consensus of global warming scientists?
Posted by: Palouse on January 16, 2007 01:23 PMI would also challenge your assertion that scientists have an ax to grind. most if not all are upper middle class and probably like there standard of living. I really doubt they want to give it up. most advocate for investments in alternatives like I discussed above. Oil is finite and located in dangerous places. Even absent global warming we would be well served to develop alternatives.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 01:23 PMNEver said anything about a flat earth. I spoke of hollow earth hypothesis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hollow_Earth
and gravity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_general_relativity
As for solar fluctuations. They do likely play a role. However the observed increase in solar radiation is simply not enough to account for the observed temperature increases. The is also the annoying fact that more solar energy is a greater threat when there are more GHG's to trap the heat.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 01:41 PMI challenge you to prove that humans are pumping large quantities of CO2 into the atmosphere, and that CO2 is the primary mechanism for trapping heat. There are several well respected papers that show that water vapor is a much greater source for trapping heat than CO2, and outright reject the greenhouse gas theory.
And the question again with CO2 is one of degree. It is: "As compared to what?" Your idea of large quantities of CO2, as compared to the entire cubic volume of the earth's atmosphere, much of which is over uninhabited land and water, may be in fact, a small quantity with little relativity. Go look at a globe. The earth is largely uninhabited from the perspective of geographical area. How is it possible that humans producing CO2 can have a greater impact that the vast forests and other foliage that occupy a far greater area of the earth than humans do? And what of all the area that is covered only by water? Is it really possible for very small concentrations of human activity on the earth to fill the entire volume of the atmosphere with effects greater than that of the water vapor and clouds generated by the sun's heat?
You see, much of what you blindly accept as fact, has been challenged and questioned by scientists. The fact is, no one knows exactly who is right yet, in the same way that no one knows yet how to predict the exact time of an earthquake. But that doesn't mean that the debate is over.
There are still open ended questions in science. And especially those with an extremely high number of system inputs. There was a recent study that shows that cow flatulence accounts for a greater portion of so-called Greenhouse gases than mankind. Is that true? Maybe. Are you absolutely sure it is not true? And again, there is no certainty that CO2 is the primary mechanism for trapping heat.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 01:43 PM"If yes, then why is it a stretch to say that humans pumping large quantities of it into the atmosphere might have an effect?" The significant word here is might, so equally it might not. If you notice here in the Puget sound that it is FAR colder on clear nights than cloudy nights, which through empirical observation means that water is the cause of global warming as it traps heat very effectively. And we do have temerature swings on Mars. That is why the Martian ice cap is getting smaller, and I don't think it is from the martian rover. Again that point to solar activity, not man's activity.
"I would also challenge your assertion that scientists have an ax to grind. most if not all are upper middle class and probably like there standard of living". One way to maintain their standard of living is to have a healthy and steady flow of funds sent to them for research of, say, global warming?
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 16, 2007 01:47 PMI like your assertions that higher sea levels, more volital [sic] weather, and shifting crop regions are not good. How do you know that they are not good? Furthermore, how do you know that it is being caused anthropogenically? If it is not being caused by humans, how can you expect any activity that we change to stop it?
I suggest that you actually read some articles and books by people, especially climatologists, that have different viewpoints than what you have been so gleefully swallowing from the MSM and the agenda-driven Left. I suggest "Meltdown: The Predictable Distortion of Global Warming by Scientists, Politicians, and the Media" by Patrick J. Michaels.
Back on topic of the FW school board decision...although I would rather that the school not show AlGore's movie at all, I think that it should be accompanied not by the opposing viewpoint concerning the GW arguement, but it should be noted that it (the movie) is purely for AlGore's political gain and not for any real concern for this country or this world.
Posted by: Devil Dawg on January 16, 2007 01:47 PMAre you aware that the average temperature of the planet is almost entirely determined by the energy that hits it from the sun? Think about nightfall. Why does it get colder at night? What do you think would happen if there was no sunlight for one week? So in essence, even you can't be naive enough, to not see that the sun is the primary energy input to the earth. Yet you are saying, that the noise margin of temperature fluctuation might not be affected by the largest energy contributor?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
"If you notice here in the Puget sound that it is FAR colder on clear nights than cloudy nights, which through empirical observation means that water is the cause of global warming as it traps heat very effectively. And we do have temerature swings on Mars. That is why the Martian ice cap is getting smaller, and I don't think it is from the martian rover. Again that point to solar activity, not man's activity."
Your conclusion is not sustained by your premises. At best all you have shown is that water vapor and the sun play a role, not that they are the sole cause.
"I like your assertions that higher sea levels, more volital [sic] weather, and shifting crop regions are not good. How do you know that they are not good?"
If more Katrina's, huge seawalls, and moving all of our farms sounds good to you, then there you go. We can invest now and develop a new sustainable economy or we can invest more latter to salvage what we can.
There is no contradiction. Think of of it like a real greenhouse. It is much warmer inside then out. Why because we have created an environment that traps the heat. By altering the type of glass, or by putting certain gases in between planes of glass we can increase or decrease the amount of heat that is trapped. The planet is no different. CO@ traps hat and more CO2 traps more heat.
Increases in solar energy do affect planetary temperature. However from what we have observed any current increase are simply not enough to have caused the increase in temperature. That being said CO2 traps a fraction of the available heat. So if the sun produces 100 units of heat, 100 units of CO2 will trap 10 units of that heat. Up the sun to 110 units and we get 11 units trapped. Up the CO2 to 130 and we get 14.3 units of heat. While the sun is not the sole factor is indeed a factor.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 02:15 PMCheck the facts about the effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere. More CO2 has a logarithmic effect on the heat trapping ability of the atmosphere. Thus, the more CO2 you put into the air, the amount of heat trapped does not see as much of an increase. That is to say, it is not a one-to-one relationship. And the more CO2 that is in the atmosphere, the relationship falls farther away from one-to-one.
Posted by: Devil Dawg on January 16, 2007 02:27 PMYou asked why there are not temperature fluctuations on other planets, which I responded with there are, as in Mars. That points to planetary warming based on solar activity, not local conditions.
So figure out how we can adjust global cloud covering and we can effect the global temperature, but there isn't much that can be done about solar activity.
Posted by: Right said Fred on January 16, 2007 02:34 PMYeah right, "moving all of our farms".
Silly.
the amount of ALL the various GHS in ALL the world frozen areas is less then the 500 billion emissions of CO2 alone that humans have produced.
that being said the release of these stored gases would be quite bad and is one of the feedback loops that occur in climate change.
Posted by: Giffy on January 16, 2007 02:48 PMYour argument, or more accurately, Gore's argument is entirely predicated on the earth operating as a simplistic greenhouse model. Many scientists have shown that this is not true. Furthermore, even if mankind is responsible as a net adder of glass or thickness of glass to the greenhouse, we are not the primary cause of heat trapping on earth, nor are we in any way in control of the louvers of the greenhouse which vent heat off. The primary means of heat transfer in our atmosphere is convection. We know that as cold and warm air fronts that we see set the tone of our weather, day after day, and we know that as something completely beyond our control. A greenhouse works be preventing convection altogether. At best, a greenhouse is a very simplistic model for something as complex as global climate. And that's why it appeals to you.
You are clearly completely certain of what you've been told. But your certainty does not equate to actual certainty that we have ended all argument about the cause, or even effects of global climate. There are many scientists that show that in past eras (much before the SUV) that accumulations of CO2 are precursors to an ice age. The truth is that it remains to be seen exactly what will happen, or exactly how long it will take to even enter a definite period with serious measurable consequence. We could easily hover in this period for a thousand years, as has happened with past climatic shifts. Anyone who tells you that they know for certain what will happen, is simply lying.
History has always been a good guide in such matters. Throughout recorded human history, there has never been a 50 year period with the apocalyptic outcome preached by you. Current data suggests that only in models where worst case scenarios are imputed, will there be anything even approaching a massive effect.
Hysteria and Uncertainty have always been good human motivators and opportunities to convince. That's why the left has glommed on to the very vague and as of yet, unverifiable crisis of climate catastrophe and given it a shiny and easily marketable and digestible term like "Global Warming."
But it's not going to sell, because it does not jibe with reality for the vast majority. Most people have too much common sense, and thankfully selfishness to bother with anything that does not present an immediate threat. Keep up your hysteria. It serves those of us that would like to see a more methodical approach to science well because, the louder the cries, the more likely that people will remember them when doomsday does don't come to pass or ends up being just a fizzle.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 16, 2007 03:07 PMNeed we remind everyone that 100 years ago the average home didn't have indoor plumbing and most Americans didn't live to 65 years of age?
I think it's okay to be highly suspect of the measuring instruments that existed then. The minor variations in measured temperatures might be more about inaccurate tools than about global catastrophe.
Posted by: johnny on January 16, 2007 03:39 PMI blame global warming.
You could.
If you think that global warming only produces warm weather events you haven't learned much about global weather. The fact that we might be getting cold weather when we normally do not is just as possibly due to global warming trends and events that have shifted weather patterns and the jet stream, creating more extreme variations at either end of the temperature scale.
But of course that would rob you of a snide remark against global warming whenever the weather was unusually cold or snowy here.
Posted by: Daniel K on January 16, 2007 09:27 PMI remember Bradley back in 2000 presidential race emphatically show that an unfrozen portion of the northern climes was now unfrozen. It made sense to me then, but over the years, other researchers have pointed out a very significant truth- Greenland was called Greenland because of its green and not as frozen as it is today.
So, Daniel, I am struggling with the concept of where do you draw the line? And then, what should I/we do about it? There is still a lot of research and discussion that needs to be done yet, but what should we do about it- "there is a God and the human race is not him".
Posted by: swatter on January 17, 2007 07:25 AM