When she insisted that teachers “are supposed to be open to opinions,” however, Mr. Sutter held his ground.A public school teacher chose a video for the purpose of presenting an argument based on Christianity?! It's supposed to be a science class. It's not a class about the history of religion or comparative religion. As the NYT presents it, the teacher was introducing religious material for the purpose of bolstering a scientific conclusion.
“It’s not about opinions,” he told her. “It’s about the evidence.”
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’ she sniffed to her friends.
Gwen, 17, could not put her finger on why she found Mr. Sutter, whose biology class she had enjoyed, suddenly so insufferable. Mr. Sutter, sensing that his facts and figures were not helping, was at a loss. And the day she grew so agitated by a documentary he was showing that she bolted out of the school left them both shaken.
“I have a runner,” Mr. Sutter called down to the office, switching off the video.
He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
“It was just so biased toward saying climate change is real,” she said later, trying to explain her flight. “And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Here's the video. It's almost an hour long, and I haven't watched it yet.
I don't know how much religion is in the video, and I'm not giving a legal opinion on whether the teacher violated the Establishment Clause. We can discuss that. I just want to call out the New York Times for its inattention to the Establishment Clause, which it usually expects its readers to take very seriously, especially in the context of educating children.
It makes me suspect that those who are demanding that we believe in climate change really are operating in a religion mode and that does not inspire confidence in science.
And, really, why is it so important for Miss Beatty to believe in climate change? She has an active and inquisitive mind. Why not feed it and support it and empower her to go where she sees fit? Bullying her with demands for belief — even without the religion larded in — isn't likely to inspire her to take on a STEM career.
I'd like to read the comments on this NYT article, but — despite the paper's new reliance on comments in lieu of a Public Editor — comments are not enabled for this one.
ADDED: "I have a runner" — that's weird. They have a word for kids like her? "Runner" made me think of "Logan's Run":
In the year 2274, the remnants of human civilization live in a sealed city contained beneath a cluster of geodesic domes... The citizens live a hedonistic life but, to maintain the city, everyone must undergo the ritual of Carousel when they reach the age of 30... [E]ach person is implanted at birth with a "life-clock" crystal in the palm of their hand that changes color as they get older and begins blinking as they approach their "Last Day." Most residents accept this promise of rebirth, but those who do not and attempt to flee the city are known as "Runners." An elite team of policemen known as "Sandmen"... are assigned to pursue and terminate Runners as they try to escape....RUNNER!
पोस्ट्स
२१० टिप्पण्या:
210 पैकी 1 – 200 नवीन› नवीनतम»And, really, why is it so important for Gwen to believe in climate change?
She'll be old enough to vote soon.
"...comments are not enabled for this one."
Why am I not surprised? What? ME cynical?
It's hard to preach obedience to the tenants of a religion that is based on a Fake Science that uses fraudulent data and cartoons for demanding obedience. Falling for fake government religions is anti science. That is why true science protected by the establishment clause had to be created in the first place.
This so called teacher comes right out of Orwell's 1984. And then making God a reason to obey lies is desperate propaganda.
And how are you gonna keep intelligent kids from noticing the Global Cooling happening all around us? That takes more than slick cartoons.
I've noticed for several months now that the NYT has not enabled comments on stories that they felt they were going to get pushback on. I used to enjoy reading the comments more than the articles.
And, really, why is it so important for Gwen to believe in climate change?
Because lefties aren't getting the political policy decisions they so desperately want.
Not coincidentally they are the same policy decisions lefties claim as the solution to every other problem.
One need not be a Christian in order to be opposed to the CAGW scam. Religion has nothing to do with being against this fraud, Anyone with the vaunted critical thinking skills the Left claims to be teaching in th public schools can figure this out.
CAGW is not science. It is a theory. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon flawed and failed models that have been wildly wrong in the past. The models use corrupted and adjusted data. It is not Newtonian physics.
One rhotical aspect of the CAGW scam is that it uses numbers, studies and computers as part of its appeal to authority. IOW, the veneer of science. Another aspect here is that the CAGW scam needs accurate economic models. The economic models of Obamacare were off by miles. So how is the global warming model for 2100 going to be correct.
And why oh why does this story from Ohio end up in the NYT?
Climate Alarmism is updated Christianity.
"Before the Fall, mankind lived innocently in a perfect harmony with nature. The snake of capitalism offered Adam the apple of technology, which he took. Gaia then cast humanity from the Garden of Eden. Of course the whole "Adam's Rib" thing was discarded for obvious reasons."
In the words of the famous song Woodstock, "We've got to get ourselves back to the ga ah ar den!"
That's why people who don't even understand what the word "exponential" means, and who have no idea what I am talking about or what the implications are that the effect is logarithmic, are completely un-embarrased to make mathematically ridiculous arguments in defense of their faith in catastrophic warming. When they do that, what comes to mind is an image from "Inherit the Wind" of the William Jennings Bryan character thumping his Bible with his thumb.
The church of climate change is feeling the pressure. They know they are not science and are in fact acting like a religion.
"“I have a runner,” Mr. Sutter called down to the office, switching off the video."
Heretic!
Ann said: It makes me suspect that those who are demanding that we believe in climate change really are operating in a religion mode and that does not inspire confidence in science.
Are the climatistas losing Ann? I have been saying this for years now. They are actively killing off understanding of the scientific method.
And, really, why is it so important for Gwen to believe in climate change? She has an active and inquisitive mind. Why not feed it and support it and empower her to go where she sees fit? Bullying her with demands for belief — even without the religion larded in — isn't likely to inspire her to take on a STEM career.
They need the people to believe that if they don't give them control over fossil fuels the people are all going to die. This is a taxpayer funded effort to get more taxpayer funding and to gain control over the lifeblood of the modern economy: fossil fuels. Because government is pushing this at every level around the world.
Despite every attempt to downplay the central role fossil fuels play in the economy they know that it is a lie. They know wind will never be viable and solar is 2 or 3 generations of technology away both in storage and collection and will only really be useful in space. Real people on planet earth will be using fossil fuels until we switch over to nuclear power. Out in space it will be a combination of nuclear and solar.
David Begley said...
One need not be a Christian in order to be opposed to the CAGW scam. Religion has nothing to do with being against this fraud"
Of course not. But somehow tying it in with Christianity give leftists another reason to hate Christians.
You know, I was raised atheist and it was definitely a belief system and one part was 'anyone that has any religious belief is either stupid or delusional' and therefore whatever they say can be discarded. It's doesn't sound like that girl is delusional or stupid. She understands exactly how she is being perceived
He says, ‘I left a higher-paying job to come teach in an area like this,’” Jacynda recalled. “We’re like, ‘What is that supposed to mean?
Says the straight A student. NYT readers immediately relate to the teacher.
"I have a runner."
That's rather chilling.
You see, God, in whom we do not believe, nonetheless created Earth at the perfect temperature for human habitation, and since the Earth is only about 5,000 years old, by that, I mean history started at the end of the last ice age, (Younger Dryas was 9,000 years ago) and the current interglacial is "ideal" and any deviations can only be in the service of Satan.
The idea that over the last five million years, interglacials like the one we are currently enjoying have been decidedly brief compared to the hundreds of thousands of years long periods of glaciation and that maybe staving off the next ice age might be of net benefit to humankind, well, that's Satan talking son!
As Jonathan Haidt (social psychologist who researches how people make moral and ethical decisions) has pointed out, the Left views their beliefs as sacrosanct and therefore to question their them is to deny their "articles of faith". It is not expressing an alternative view point, it is blasphemy.
Gaia akbar!
If!?!, you speak to me of if? Off with your head!. -Richard III. Just watched it, this scene applies to a lot, 400 years old literature by a dead white male or not.
I was both sad and stunned that the Jesuit Pope attacked POTUS for pulling us out of the Paris Treaty. Is the Pope saying that it is my Catholic duty to believe in CAGW? That one can't be a good Catholic and opposed to CAGW?
This politization of religion only drives people out. Only liberals are allowed to be Catholics today. Conservatives and critical thinkers on political issues are not allowed in today's Catholic Church.
Same thing with illegal immigration. No way the Catholic Church should get involved with this issue.
Same thing with illegal immigration. No way the Catholic Church should get involved with this issue.
"Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" was left out of the Pope's Bible, after all, even Jesus made some errors in thought, right Pope?
What kind of teacher lets one student dictate his curriculum? Did he change his entire plan for the semester?
"why is it so important for Miss Beatty to believe in climate change? She has an active and inquisitive mind. Why not feed it and support it and empower her to go where she sees fit?"
That was my first thought on reading. Back when I was teaching classes in evolution, I'd get students who were avowed creationists. I didn't think it was my job to 'convert' them. I was there to lay out the theory and data, and make sure they understood it.
isn't likely to inspire her to take on a STEM career.
We've got to get more women interested in stuff they won't be interested in.
...well, that's Satan talking son."
Do what I command and believe what I tell you to, or I will use all the social pressure I can muster, up to and including raw state power, to make you do it and believe it.
To me that is Satan talking. A touchstone characteristic of Satan and his followers is a lust for power over others.
Funny thing, humans.
They have this natural, God-given reflex to things being shoved down their throats.
I agree that teachers need not be open to opinions if they run contrary to facts. However, a good teacher will not belittle the opinions of his/her students, but will instead present facts to inform decision making. It's teaching, not indoctrination.
Belief does not belong.
Isn't this... bullying? The teacher continues to pick on her. Note that the NYT is only *told* that the girl is a straight A student. Why didn't they ask her? Or her parents? They seem to get quotes from her sniffing to her friends -- so why not just clarify that point?
He changed his entire lesson plan to attack her. He singles her out in class; he goes to the NYT to complain about her (the story is from his view point primarily, so I doubt she's the one bringing them the story.) Why would the NYT even print a story about a teacher bullying a student in the anti-bullying world of today is that the NYT thought this was something that people would accept as a good thing?
Finding Darwin's God, by the way, is an excellent book on evolution from a theist.
I watched the first couple of minutes and had to just stop. Christians care sooo - God gave us the planet and we are to be good stewards and take care of it...therefore Global warming is real and to ignore that is to ignore our God-given role of good stewards who must fix the disaster we're creating. What. Utter. Hogwash.
Being a good steward and doing those things that show respect for the planet - and the humanity that inhabits it - does not automatically equate to buying the 'man made upcoming disaster of global warming. Er, climate change' that is being used to justify the control of the people of this amazing blue sphere. They'll be wishing we had increased that temperature when this ice age we're currently in really starts to roll.
Go ahead. Argue with the fake, idiot scientist.
If you think of Sutter as less a teacher and more a democrat party operative tasked with indoctrination of children his actions make more sense.
Is there anyone here who believes this will end well?
"We've got a runner!" Is that really in the article? That's right out of scientology, and I am sure just about every other cult .
David Begley said...
I was both sad and stunned that the Jesuit Pope attacked POTUS for pulling us out of the Paris Treaty. Is the Pope saying that it is my Catholic duty to believe in CAGW? That one can't be a good Catholic and opposed to CAGW?"
Give this Pope's track record, I was not stunned at all.
Good Catholics are not obliged to obey the Pope when it comes to nondoctrinal teachings.
It's just unfortunate that at a time when the West badly needs wise leadership we have Francis the Leftist rather than JPII or Benedict.
Matthew Sablan said...
Isn't this... bullying? The teacher continues to pick on her...
He changed his entire lesson plan to attack her."
If Ritmo was a teacher....
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming. That is an important and interesting fact about the world that will have considerable impact on its biology. As a consequence, the teacher is not being unreasonable in addressing the issue. That Christians might find this fact of some interest, given that they live on the planet, also seems to be a reasonable assumption.
I have heard the phrase 'we've got a runner' used by parents in many contexts - not creepy.
I remember my first day of a science class in college. Physics 115. Here is what the good prof said: "Don't believe anything I say on faith! Make me prove it to you!" Of course he was teaching actual science, so he had little fear of "runners" undermining his lessons.
The student is very dangerous - an independent thinker! But no worries, sometime in the next 20 years she'll be arrested and sent to the camps for being the first to stop clapping.
What a missed opportunity for the teacher. He could have encouraged his bright inquisitive student to dig into the literature and find the methodological weaknesses, questionable premises and faulty logic--and there's plenty there for her to discover--in a rigorous way. He could have praised her skepticism, which is fundamental to the way that true science should be evaluated. But he was far less interested in getting her to think like a scientist than he was to change her mind and have her think like a high school teacher.
I have heard the phrase 'we've got a runner' used by parents in many contexts - not creepy.
Ha ha ha! Good thing I was between sips of coffee when I read that one! It's how "reasonable people" handle disagreement.
Exiledonmainstreet:
The problem is that many people are in the middle or are not critical thinkers. Ergo, for many people if the Pope says it then it must be true. All good Catholics must believe in man-made global warming.
I just thought the Pope - as a Jesuit - would figure out the real problem here which is this: taking one side one a political issue alienates the other side. The Catholic Church can't exist if it is only for liberals.
By bolding the following paragraph,
He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
Althouse appears to suggest, unreasonably, that there is a problem here. Many scientists are Christians. The Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, is a Christian. Scientists who are Christians should not be excluded from discussing science in schools simply because they are Christians.
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming
There is plenty of doubt that it is warmer today than it was a thousand years ago, however. I will be happy to respond to any citation of the scientific literature that purport to prove me wrong.
"The Director of the NIH, Francis Collins, is a Christian. Scientists who are Christians should not be excluded from discussing science in schools simply because they are Christians."
-- The problem isn't that the people in the video are Christians; the problem is that the video was specifically chosen to attack a specific student in front of the entire class.
The Catholic Church can't exist if it is only for liberals
They are counting on the awesome power of millinery. They think the funny hat will win the day over the lumpenproles.
AReasonableMan said...
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming.
15,000 years ago, there was a glacier where I presently live, so, yes, it has been warming, and thank God, or whomever you want to for it. Win.
"— despite the paper's new reliance on comments in lieu of a Public Editor — comments are not enabled for this one."
No need tfo comments, the science is settled.
David Begley said...
I was both sad and stunned that the Jesuit Pope attacked POTUS for pulling us out of the Paris Treaty. Is the Pope saying that it is my Catholic duty to believe in CAGW? That one can't be a good Catholic and opposed to CAGW?
To compensate, abortion is now "whatevs."
VU,
Ha ha ha! Good thing I was between sips of coffee when I read that one! It's how "reasonable people" handle disagreement.
And Arm is a reasonable man. Like Brutus was an honorable man.
I think that the fundamental driver of the AGW scare is not a crypto-religion, it's straight up racism. The white left. is scared shitless of living in a world like the one the brown people of this planet live in.
Matthew Sablan said...
the problem is that the video was specifically chosen to attack a specific student
This is your projection not Althouse's objection, which is summarized in the title of the post - 'When the NYT forgets about the Establishment Clause and public education.'
It is a ridiculous argument that is inherently biased against Christian scientists.
Didn't "runner" come from the movie Logan's Run?
The premise there is that everyone is killed at age 29, and those who try to escape death are called "runners".
Maybe they used the term "runner" back in the days of slavery.
Is it warmer today than during the Eemian, when humans were around, but had likely not burned the first lump of coal? No. 15KA the spot I am on would have. been under a mile thick glacier, a few hundred thousand KA, I would have been under salt water.
"There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming."
Even if I grant you that, show me the evidence that the primary cause is man produced carbon.
And even if I grant you that only man produced carbon is causing it, tell me what you/we need to do about that huge super-volcano that is burgeoning beneath Yellowstone. When that blows, it will spew enough carbon to wipe us all out many times over.
So, let's get on these minor details and get them all sorted out, and then let's talk about my beliefs.
"I just thought the Pope - as a Jesuit - would figure out the real problem here which is this: taking one side one a political issue alienates the other side"
David, the Jesuits have been pretty left-wing since the 1960's. My brother went to Marquette in the early 70's and he can attest to that.
"CAGW is not science. It is a theory. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon flawed and failed models that have been wildly wrong in the past. The models use corrupted and adjusted data."
Whether CAGW is or is not science, is or is not flawed and failed, is or is not corrupted, or is or is not wildly wrong, it is not "a prediction about events in the far distant future." Many of the devastating global changes it predicts are expected (by its proponents) to occur over the next few decades, during the lifespan of people alive today.
"I have heard the phrase 'we've got a runner' used by parents in many contexts - not creepy."
I think the general context is usually when the child doing the 'running' is not neurotypical, i.e. autistic, sooo...
Unless you have other examples? Parents may joke about it when they have a child that is independent or strong-willed, but other than that?
Robert Cook said...
during the lifespan of people alive today.
To be fair, not much effect for the demographic that posts here regularly.
Bob Ellison said...
Didn't "runner" come from the movie Logan's Run?
Exactly. You can't run from the State.
"What a missed opportunity for the teacher. He could have encouraged his bright inquisitive student to dig into the literature and find the methodological weaknesses, questionable premises and faulty logic--and there's plenty there for her to discover--in a rigorous way. He could have praised her skepticism, which is fundamental to the way that true science should be evaluated. But he was far less interested in getting her to think like a scientist than he was to change her mind and have her think like a high school teacher."
Well-said.
I'm more inclined than not to accept that global climate change is happening, but I'm not a scientist and I can't assert with personal certainty either that the predictions are right or wrong. However, as a teacher, his responsibility, whatever his personal opinions on the topic, is to present as much data as possible, as well as the interpretations and arguments that derive from the data--pro and con--and ask the students to consider all possibilities and come to their own understanding of the accuracy or error of the predictions about climate change.
Comments are enabled now at the NYT.
Exiled:
Correct. Many Jesuits are liberals but the savvy ones keep politics out of religion because they know the numbers. The Catholic Church can't keep its numbers up if it is exclusively for liberals. Conservative .Catholics will end up moving to Joel Olsteen. Olsteen has his own channel on Sirius.
The naked emperor meets a stubborn obstacle; a child in the crowd.
What is strange is that so many people who are not in a position to profit from the gravy train of subsidies for alternate energy (see Solyndra) nevertheless continue to act on behalf of those who are and will become insanely wealthy in the process. The only model I can think of is a televangelist's following.
Blogger Virtually Unknown said...
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming
There is plenty of doubt that it is warmer today than it was a thousand years ago, however. I will be happy to respond to any citation of the scientific literature that purport to prove me wrong.
Well, it is June, and August really sucks bad.
Robert Cook said...
Whether CAGW is or is not science, is or is not flawed and failed, is or is not corrupted, or is or is not wildly wrong, it is not "a prediction about events in the far distant future." Many of the devastating global changes it predicts are expected (by its proponents) to occur over the next few decades, during the lifespan of people alive today.
So you agree that there IS DOUBT? Your only argument is that the 'models' predict that catastrophe may happen sooner - or not...
You may want to delete this comment before your fellow passengers (ARM, etc) find you out.
"I have a runner". WTF??
Just like in Logan's run, those in charge of the reincarnation hoax didn't want anybody heading to the surface to think for themselves.
So this guy used a film to say, your religion isn't in sync with my secular religion. No shit. Global warming has a little of the Tower of Babel flavor to it. We think we can not only affect, but also reverse and control the temperature of the planet. It's a secular God complex.
Clear establishment issue. The teacher is displaying only support of the religion of climate change as a government representative.
I expect the ACLU will be in touch soon...
AReasonableMan said...
Many scientists are Christians... Scientists who are Christians should not be excluded from discussing science in schools simply because they are Christians.
That's fine, but what scientist who is a Christian are you talking about? The paragraph you quote never mentions anyone as a scientist.
To be fair, not much effect for the demographic that posts here regularly.
These are the kind of arguments Aristotle would make, I guess... In ARM's world. It's the kinds of arguments we hear over and over from the warmies. Long on insinuation, short on content. You can wait for a generation to die off, you have no choice in the matter regardless, but by that time a new generation will be impatiently waiting for doddering old fools like yourself to die.
Gusty Winds said...
So this guy used a film to say, your religion isn't in sync with my secular religion.
This is the exact opposite of what the quoted passages imply.
"Many of the devastating global changes it predicts are expected (by its proponents) to occur over the next few decades"
Sorry, I just woke up after a fifteen year nap. You are referring to the second wave of devastating global changes that are going to occur, right? The first wave already happened, didn't it?
People live longer all the time. Plus it's pretty funny that ARM defends a trope from Logan's Run about "runners" while bleating another about how old people should just die already.
This is the exact opposite of what the quoted passages imply.
This is the problem with ARM. He believes that reading comprehension is the important fact and beyond that, don't question authority. Many of us of a conservative bent believe that reading comprehension is only the first step in critical thinking.
I guess I will have to wait for my citations of the scientific literature regarding proof that it is warmer today than it was a thousand years ago. So I will stop hogging the thread until such is forthcoming. [Personal insults aimed at ARM's cognitive acuity and purblind worldview deleted because I won't go there at Althouse's request.]
Many of the devastating global changes it predicts are expected (by its proponents) to occur over the last few decades, during the lifespan of people alive today.
FIFY
ARM is the one who sounds creepy.
I remember a lot of terrible things were supposed to happen in the early 2000s and 2010s. I guess we must have managed to stave off the impending doom.
Mind you: I think we SHOULD be looking into renewable energy, recycling, protecting the environment, etc.
Virtually Unknown said...
This is the problem with ARM. He believes that reading comprehension is ... important
J'accuse ...!
The teacher presented the film as evidence that "even Christians can believe in CAGW."
The student was the one who was not having any of that.
“It’s like you can’t disagree with a scientist or you’re ‘denying science,”’ she sniffed to her friends.
Gwen Beatty was learning a lesson. She had appeared to violate the rules. She was warned. She was given an explanation. Nevertheless, she sniffed.
There are so many things wrong with public schools at this point. This is one of them.
Honestly, the teacher may find that teaching isn't his calling. When your solution to a kid asking questions, even stupid ones, is to berate them and browbeat them, and then make an example of them -- you're not the cool Ms. Bliss/Mr. Pheeney type teacher from the high school comedy; you're the dick teacher who usually only lasts an episode until they learn an important lesson.
The guy sounds like a terrible teacher, and I'm wondering, but not really, why he's using climate-change as a vehicle to teach kiddy science when there are simpler subjects around, like oncology and particle physics.
that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
0 Bible results for “climate.”
When he described the flooding, droughts and fierce storms
And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.
“And that all these people that I pretty much am like are wrong and stupid.”
Well, yeah, but if she attains "clean beast" status she might get a spot on the ark and be saved from the floods.
"So you agree that there IS DOUBT?"
I agree there is a dispute.
(The dispute coming from non-scientists seems far greater than from scientists, but there is a dispute.)
The article has so much hyperbole and conjecture. It's like the author was trying to include every talking point in one article so they could take the rest of the week off. Must be summer?!
-"Why would I lie to you?" he demanded one morning. "It's not like I'm making a lot of money here."
-"It's not about opinions," he told her. "It's about the evidence."
-"I have a runner,"...
-Originally tied, perhaps, to economic self-interest, climate change has itself become a proxy for conservative ideals of hard work, small government and what people here call "self-sustainability."
-"What people 'believe about global warming doesn't reflect what they know," Dan Kahan, a Yale researcher...
-"Adolescents are still heavily influenced by their parents, but they're also figuring themselves out," Kathryn Stevenson, a researcher at North Carolina State University...
-...on whom she relied to supply the $2.40 for school lunch that she could not otherwise affor.
-He happened to do so at a time when the mounting evidence of the toll that global warming is likely to take, and the Trump administration's considerable efforts to ddiscredit those findings, ...
-At Wellston, where most students live nelow the poverty line and the needle-strewn bike path that ...
-And since most Wellston graduates typically do not go on to obtain a four-year college degree, this may be the only chance many of them have to study the impact of global warming.
These poor AND stupid rubes. How can we save them?!
Gwen, the teacher, and the reporter need to spend a few hours on Watts Up With That to get a critical look at the evidence so far. In the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, we have a hypothesis that is not being matched by observation in the real world. That is a part of the scientific process, one that usually leads to the hypothesis being rejected or modified. Political actors, like the teacher and the reporter, can keep plucking that chicken, but they are in denial.
To quote a famous physicist, "It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is; it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
So this is what happens to Fearless Girl IRL.
"In the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming theory, we have a hypothesis that is not being matched by observation in the real world."
-- This is the problem. I believe that people are changing the environment; I'm just not sure that it is going to be catastrophic cooling, heating or whatever. We should be taken prudent means to figuring that out and minimizing unnecessary impacts to the environment, but when I'm told things like "New York will be underwater by 2012... err... 2032? 2032," I can't help but become more skeptical.
J'accuse ...!
That's what passes for evidence with ARM, he Dowdlerizes my quote to change it's meaning, then uses it as some sort of jibe. I didn't just say you believe that reading comprehension is important, I said you believe that the quest for understanding ends with it. A point you happily amplify yourself.
"There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming"
As others have noted, what is your time frame. The answer is yes, no or maybe. But "no doubt" is the only one allowed in the Warmist Church.
I always caution people to look at the raw numbers (when available)on polls. I always caution people to look at dates chosen for trends on subjects like AGW.
For example many discussions on ice uses 1979 as the starting point to discuss whether today's ice is less. Ever wonder why?
AReasonableMan said...
This is the exact opposite of what the quoted passages imply.
Easy there Aristotle. It's right in line.
"He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity."
He picked a Showtime series with cameo's by Leslie Stahl and John Kerry, which makes the green crusading daughter of a skeptical evangelical preacher the hero. See...the heroine in this cliched episode, didn't let her religion interfere from aligning with his. Especially that backwoods, southern, evangelical kind of religion. If your familiar with the series, the whole thing is "Emmy winning" propaganda.
This educated hipster, saving the ignorant daughter of a coal miner in Appalachia, thought he'd use a little Jesus on the poor uneducated hillbilly to see his side of things.
Yesterday the Fransican's issued a statement condemning Trump for pulling out of the Paris fleecing. I'm Catholic and I think they're full it. But I'll bet we both believe in the Resurrection.
So what you do is cherry pick liberal Christians to back up your secularism. Heck, just get your average Unitarian in a bishops hat and you'll have everyone believing Jesus would have worked at planned parenthood if born today.
Paco: That was my first thought on reading. Back when I was teaching classes in evolution, I'd get students who were avowed creationists. I didn't think it was my job to 'convert' them. I was there to lay out the theory and data, and make sure they understood it.
Ah, but Paco, that's not how the prog mind works. Continuing to disagree with a prog tells him that either you don't really understand (in which case further haranguing is in order), or you are a bad person. (Unless you're a member of a protected victim group. In which case you can say and believe the stupidest shit imaginable and have your views treated with groveling deference.)
Climate "Science" has no experimental side. There is no way it can be modeled without all sorts of assumptions. It's about as scientific as Economics and we know how well that works.
The problem is that it got entangled with politics and lots of money. Mostly it got involved with Socialism and the left's war on Capitalism.
Plus, of course, there is a lot of money involved, for "scientists" government grants and for corporations, government subsidies.
Chris Wallace, on Fox Sunday, was making a point, he thought, that "Green" industries had more jobs than coal and other fossil fuels.
He did not mention how many jobs were supported by taxes in each category.
Gusty Winds: Yesterday the Fransican's issued a statement condemning Trump for pulling out of the Paris fleecing. I'm Catholic and I think they're full it. But I'll bet we both believe in the Resurrection.
Not a bet I'd take these days.
Now I really have had enough of shooting fish in a barrel.
NYT is only interested in the establishment clause when it is useful to bash Christians.
As usual in today's curriculum, 'science' is politicized. It's all about 'rain forests' and 'global warming' and how nasty and destructive mankind is. There is, in the real world, so much science that that should be taught but that doesn't fit their agenda, which is to mold the political thinking of the young.
CAGW is not science. It is a theory. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon flawed and failed models that have been wildly wrong in the past. The models use corrupted and adjusted data. It is not Newtonian physics.
Perfectly true. It seems fair to note that back in the late 1990s and through the mid-naughts people made short-term predictions, roughly five to ten years out, none of which came to pass. A proper response for a real scientist would have been to rethink the models but the primary response is to "slide the predictions out to the right."
(To be fair some scientists have reexamined the models; just their conclusions are not being published.)
The science teacher is demanding belief and obedience, which are religious or political values. Belief and obedience are not part of science. They are, however, part of scientism.
Big Mike
After all of the short term doom dates set by Al Gore and James Hansen came and went with nothing happening the CAGW crowd either got vague about dates or put the end of the world as "late in this century." The new date of doom is far enough out that we will all be dead from natural causes when they are wrong again. But, of course, the money will have been spent today.
Let's return to Althouse's actual argument for a moment.
By bolding the following paragraph,
He had chosen the video, an episode from an Emmy-winning series that featured a Christian climate activist and high production values, as a counterpoint to another of Gwen’s objections, that a belief in climate change does not jibe with Christianity.
Althouse is directly implying that scientists who are Christians should be excluded from discussing science in schools. In fact for most Christian groups at least a plurality are in broad agreement with the global warming hypothesis.
Once again, Althouse is advancing a ridiculous argument that is inherently biased against Christian scientists.
Is this "science teacher" aware that the highest value in science is skepticism?
On a field trip to a biology laboratory there, many of his students took their first ride on an escalator. To illustrate why some scientists in the 1970s believed the world was cooling rather than warming (“So why should we believe them now?” students sometimes asked), he brought in a 1968 push-button phone and a 1980s Nintendo game cartridge.
“Our data and our ability to process it is just so much better now,” he said.
I think on this field trip Professor Cognitive Dissonance was soothing his own doubts about his beliefs and the inaccuracy of the science he is selling. What does a push button phone and a Nintendo game cartridge have to do with this subject? They are both in line with technologies that improved upon their core technology. It's not like a push button phone is the antithesis of a cell phone. This guy can even align and analogy for his students.
took their first ride on an escalator "What're them thar moving stairs Mr. Teacher?"
Anybody think the NYT's confirmed any on those teenagers had NEVER seen and escalator, or were just using a little poetic licence to further illustrate the ignorance of these kids, and their need for some cityfolk learnin'?
Uniformity is an aesthetic value, and it pleases the science teacher's eye to see it in his class. What does that have to do with science? The science teacher wants to be the engineer of men's souls, everything nice and uniform and nothing out of place.
“I have a runner,” Mr. Sutter called down to the office, switching off the video.
OMG!!! She escaped. Ran off of the reservation. Avoided the indoctrination. We CANNOT have this! She must be brought down, maybe some tasers and handcuffs. Bring her back to class and tape her eyelids open and force her to learn 'right think'
Run Gwen RUN!!!! Get free while you can!!!
Ross Douthat had an excellent discussion yesterday regarding some of the contradictions inherent within the Republican's position re global warming.
ARM: That's not her argument at all.
By not trying to read her mind, but reading on, we see her say: "I don't know how much religion is in the video, and I'm not giving a legal opinion on whether the teacher violated the Establishment Clause. We can discuss that. I just want to call out the New York Times for its inattention to the Establishment Clause, which it usually expects its readers to take very seriously, especially in the context of educating children."
By the way, I have experienced just the opposite. My students often ask me about the issues of the day which we discuss in class while they are taking notes, or working independently. Climate change comes up fairly often, and often it is me versus 35 zealous converts to the church of AGW. We have an Environmental studies class, and I have an open invitation to debate the teacher, but he hasn't responded to me.
Given that the first sentence of the script to mention global warming is factually questionable, I can't say I blame Gwen for being pissed off. It's really lousy agitprop.
* * *
OTOH, it is interesting to me that the idea of "stewardship" is very celebrated in Mormon history. The settling of Utah is a story of irrigation.
It is also a story of deforestation, but that generally goes unmentioned.
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming. That is an important and interesting fact about the world that will have considerable impact on its biology
True. The problem for your side is that the Earth has been getting warmer for the last 10,000 years or so...long before man could possibly be causing it.
A second problem is that life has been improving for humanity the whole time it has been getting warmer.
I remember my first day of a science class in college. Physics 115. Here is what the good prof said: "Don't believe anything I say on faith! Make me prove it to you!"
I do this in my high school US History and Government classes. I tell them not to accept anything on faith. (Especially the media, Google and Wikipedia)
ARM, why not recapitulate Douhat's points here for us and defend them against objections? As it is, so far, your argument seems to amount to "look at the Pop's magnificent hat you knumbskulls!"
Okay, I'm 10 minutes in and there's absolutely no science in the video. It's all politics.
Many of the devastating global changes it predicts are expected (by its proponents) to occur over the next few decades, during the lifespan of people alive today.
And all of the devastating global changes it has predicted to have already occurred have failed to happen.
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming. That is an important and interesting fact about the world that will have considerable impact on its biology
Granted, but do our actions cause it, and if so, what do we do about it ?
There is considerable room for discussion.
AReasonableMan said...
Althouse is directly implying that scientists who are Christians should be excluded from discussing science in schools. In fact for most Christian groups at least a plurality are in broad agreement with the global warming hypothesis.
No she's not. And you are inferring that this teacher/"scientist" is Christian, and the article never identifies him as such. But he did use this girl's religion not really to teach her, but to embarrass and insult her. I think that is what Professor Althouse doesn't like.
His in your face attempt to show this girl that some other teenage evangelical believed in Climate Change meant she should too. If his data was good, he wouldn't need to bring Jesus into the subject. There is plenty of data which contradicts all current Global Warming hoax theories. If he was a good, honest teacher, he could present both.
Especially the data manipulation scandals.
And even your Aristotelian argument of "for most Christian groups at least a plurality are in broad agreement with the global warming hypothesis.", ain't science. It can't be tested, repeated, or proven. It's basically the same desperate leap the teacher employed.
"See, these here other Christians believe what I'm telling them, even though it ain't real science, so if you want to call yourself a Christian, you should probably get in line with the four out of five dentists that recommend sugarless gum".
"I have a runner". WTF??
As a teacher you have a legal responsibility to call the office if one of your students leaves the room without permission. Don't get caught up in the vocabulary...I don't use the term runner, but last year I had to call the office about a half dozen times because a student had left without permission.
You can go with your establishment clause dystopian sci-fi case, but I would advise the student to go for the jugular: "I felt like he picked that movie he showed the class just for me. It was creepy. He was seducing me."
ARM wrote: Althouse is directly implying that scientists who are Christians should be excluded from discussing science in schools.
How do you translate "climate activist" to mean "scientist."
You have inferred something completely unrelated to Althouse's plain meaning.
I would advise the student to go for the jugular: "I felt like he picked that movie he showed the class just for me. It was creepy. He was seducing me."
Replace seducing with stalking me and you have it. Attacking her personally for her audacity to disagree with the religion of Global Warming.
The Warmist Inquisition has its ways to pressure Heretics. And Blasphemy against the UNIPCC is a career death penalty. Rememeber what happened to the 3% ...nope, nobody remembers them anymore.
"....It makes me suspect that those who are demanding that we believe in climate change really are operating in a religion mode and that does not inspire confidence in science...."
Welcome, Professor!
Now to that teacher. He's obsessive. You will fall in line.
UCB: We've Got A Runner!
(Also: YT - Whitest Kids You Know: We Got A Runner!)
AReasonableMan said...
Althouse is directly implying that scientists who are Christians should be excluded from discussing science in schools.
Again, what scientists are you talking about? The paragraph you quote makes no mentions of scientists.
Also, there is a huge difference between not excluding scientists who are Christian, and specifically selecting scientists because they are Christian. The latter is what was done here.
Open source the science!
I'm looking at you, Penn State and Michael Hockeystick Mann!
There is no doubt that the global temperature is warming. That is an important and interesting fact about the world that will have considerable impact on its biology
A beautiful book about the arctic is Barry Lopez's Arctic Dreams. It's interesting to read a book that acknowledges global warming and its impact on the arctic without the durm und strang. To Lopez, in 1986, it a simple fact of the environment.
I suspect we might just get some real evidence soon if the solar minimum continues a few more years.
"True. The problem for your side is that the Earth has been getting warmer for the last 10,000 years or so...long before man could possibly be causing it."
No one claims that humankind caused global warming. Global warming, as all acknowledge, is part of the natural ebb and flow of the earth's warming and cooling over the eons. The claim is that humankind's activity contributes to and and is accelerating the process.
"A second problem is that life has been improving for humanity the whole time it has been getting warmer."
Well, until it starts getting worse.
Uh, yeah, ARM, I read Douhat and I don't see a single "contradiction" in my position. My position ("it's a complete scam top to bottom and the only necessary action is to keep these frauds from using it to accumulate power or wealth") is different from Douhat's ("the problem is real but the solutions the left proposes don't actually fix the problem, they oddly and inexplicably just help the Left accumulate power and wealth") just proves that Douhat is a virtue signaling concern troll which is exactly what the NY Times wants him to be, but aside from that, no one is contradicting themselves.
Althouse wrote: It makes me suspect that those who are demanding that we believe in climate change really are operating in a religion mode and that does not inspire confidence in science.
Suspect?
There used to be a turn of phrase that was very popular with progressives. What was it now? Haven't heard it for awhile... oh, yeah, wake up and smell the coffee! Well, that particular pot has been boiling for quite awhile now.
Most of the comments I read over there are unhinged. People getting riled up because a high school kid won't accept what they're saying.
The fact that ARM infers something in no way demonstrates that it was implied, but you have to sort of admire his plucky confidence in light of his limitations.
"A second problem is that life has been improving for humanity the whole time it has been getting warmer."
Well, until it starts getting worse.
People have been predicting doom since the dawn of History.....the one thing they have in common is that the predictions never come true.
I believe 2 proper responses are:
OK, Paul Erlich
OK Rachel Carson
Then there's the whole food pyramid/cholesterol/salt/eggs/low fat settled science.
No one claims that humankind caused global warming
Then why is it called Anthropogenic Global Warming??
The anthro part is human caused.
The claim is that humankind's activity contributes to and and is accelerating the process.
Claim! Plus there is no irrefutable proof that warming is going to OMG!!!!! Destroy the planet. It was much warmer during the Medieval Warming period. The worst thing that happened then was that people could grow grapes in England, people weren't freezing to death and the Vikings were able to settle in Vineland.
Virtually Unknown said...
Physics 115. Here is what the good prof said: "Don't believe anything I say on faith! Make me prove it to you!"
I heard exactly the opposite in many physics lectures because they didn't want to waste time (re)proving a bunch of math. Hand waving; if you don't like Riemannian geometry feel free to find fault with it somewhere else and report back.
I believe 2 proper responses are:
OK, Paul Erlich
OK Rachel Carson
OK Thomas Malthus
Man made global climate change hysteria is the left's religion.
Climate change has been an interesting topic in my class room of future engineers and scientist. I start by assigning the debates between Kerry Emanuel MIT professor of atmospheric science and the MIT skeptic Richard Linden, and the ask them to look at the data collected on CO2, note the warmest climate on record, gather up as much data as they can, and then make their best prediction about the future based on probable outcomes. To a degree these predictions are based on belief in what he data shows. I see my role as to ask what counts as sound evidence, question the variations in climate models , and then encourage students to make an argument for or against based on evidence and not belief. Most students read the evidence for warming as stronger than ones that claims humans have no affect on warming, or that G-D, will save us from climate change, as Republican John Shimkus has done. As I am not a climate scientist, I feel my position is to encourage honest inquiry.into what evidence we have.
Virtually Unknown observes: The fact that ARM infers something in no way demonstrates that it was implied, but you have to sort of admire his plucky confidence in light of his limitations.
Well said.
RE the question about the Establushment Clause: I know that people think that warmism looks like a religion but I'm of the opinion that it is hysteria. Mob mentality. There's nothing in the Constitution regarding communicating hysteria.
This politization of religion only drives people out. Only liberals are allowed to be Catholics today. Conservatives and critical thinkers on political issues are not allowed in today's Catholic Church.
Not so in my thriving conservative parish. i find it too stilted in the conservative direction, though, because I do find Pope Francis' focus on mercy important and also because I'd like to have healthy disagreements aired instead of suppressed. Our pastor just never mentions the pope, and I can imagine him thinking of his mother teaching him that "if you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."
"I have a runner" — that's weird. They have a word for kids like her? "Runner" made me think of "Logan's Run"
Althouse synchronicity strikes again. This has happened several times before, and it's getting more perplexing. My mind turns randomly to some subject or cultural meme that has nothing to do with current events and within hours Althouse references the same exact thing. Makes me wonder if Jung was on to something. Just last night I was randomly browsing Youtube when I saw a thumbnail for a review of Logan's Run (the film, not the silly TV spinoff) which made me desirous of a revisit to that bit of sci-fi silliness I remember rather vaguely from my gilded youth.
Within hours, I estimate about five, Althouse invokes the same film. Is Zardoz manipulating both our minds?
make their best prediction about the future based on probable outcomes.
Kinda like reading the racing form, eh? It might set the odds but not the outcome.
There is no substance to Douthat's article either, ARM. He accepts the "adjusted" temperature as a substitute for actual warming being observed over the last 20 years. "Belief" and "faith" aren't terms that should be applied to issues of scientific debate. Facts would be better for your side to marshall, if only the evidence would support your crusade.
Did the student, with parental consent if under 18, agree to a discussion of her grades?
FERPA, anybody?
Virtually Unknown: The fact that ARM infers something in no way demonstrates that it was implied, but you have to sort of admire his plucky confidence in light of his limitations.
I always remember the scene from Dennis Quaid's D.O.A.
Bernard: I don't think I like what you're inferring, Mr. Cornell...
Dexter Cornell: [condescendingly] Implying. When I say it, that's implying. How you take it, that's inferring.
Bernard: I see. Infer this.
[punches Dexter]
note the warmest climate on record,
So you have hard numbers on that?
Kinda like reading the racing form, eh?
Except the guys who wrote that have seen tens of thousands of horses and thousands of races. Even they don't claim to know who is going to win a given race.
Robert Cook said...
No one claims that humankind caused global warming.
Really? Then YOU might want to familiarize yourself with the current state of debate on the subject. I can't even count how many times I saw/read last week that "Trump is destroying the planet" just by pulling the USA out of Paris Accords. And you have to studiously ignore every single public comment by "Bill Nye science guy" in order to peddle your lies here.
No one claims that humankind caused global warming.
No one, Cook? You win the full-o-shit award for today's topic.
substitute for church and less demanding.
roesch/voltaire wrote: Most students read the evidence for warming as stronger than ones that claims humans have no affect on warming
You mischaracterize Lindzen's position (btw, it's Lindzen, not Linden), which makes wonder if you're being quite as evenhanded with your students as you claim. Also, the word is effect. Affect is the verb, as in Quaestor doubts a reasoned argument will affect roesch/voltaire's prejudices.
The left's hypersensitive over-reaction to any dissent or disagreement makes their argument weak.
For one of the best memes to come out of the skeptical side on the whole debate, you have to check out this image regarding "Nye's Quadrant" of scientific inquiry. Seriously.
https://judithcurry.com/2017/05/02/nyes-quadrant/
John Kerry and Lesley Stahl can't be making category errors can they?
CAN THEY?
Whoa cookie wrote that? Bwaaaaaaaaaa
All the student needs to do is explain calmly that of course the climate changes, we just disagree as to the causes. And if you don't stop stalking me, action will be taken.
I start by assigning the debates between Kerry Emanuel MIT professor of atmospheric science and the MIT skeptic Richard Linden, and the ask them to look at the data collected on CO2, note the warmest climate on record, gather up as much data as they can, and then make their best prediction about the future based on probable outcomes.
I wonder if roesch/voltaire points out that the change exceeds the precision of the apparatus.
Hey Jethro, let's take that there escu-lator down to the see-ment pond afor one o' them billy-ards gets to it!
Hey Jethro
LOL, the first thing that came to mind was a quote from Jethro Bodine about NYC. "Trains that runs underground? You're greenin' me!"
Has Freeman Dyson changed his mind?
Many scientists are Christians.
No, Christians believe in things like angels, devils, unicorns, talking snakes and donkeys, changing of water into wine, wine into blood and crackers into flesh, flesh into salt, virgin births, immaculate conceptions, assumptions, resurrections and the efficacy of prayer.
Scientists are characterized as agnostic when it comes to all such preposterous claims that are not supported by evidence and are not amenable to proof.
Scientists cannot believe in God, since we don't believe in believing itself. The empty set of so-called "Christian scientists," represented by Francis Collins, could do us all a favor by producing one of those preposterous creatures or substances of the Bible or by setting up and running a controlled experiment that shows the efficacy of prayer. The result would no doubt indicate that faith is no more than "the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Last year was the WARMEST YEAR EVER!!! by a supposed .01 degree. The study cited to support this had an error rate of .1 degree.
Am I the only one seeing a problem here?
If peeps want to keep an eye on what the deniers/enemy/heretics say, watts up with that and Judith Curry are good places to start.
David Begley wrote: CAGW is not science. It is a theory. It is a prediction about events in the far distant future based upon flawed and failed models that have been wildly wrong in the past. The models use corrupted and adjusted data.
CAGW is not even a theory. At best it is informed speculation. I'm a pretty good judge of horseflesh, but you'd be a fool to invest more than $2 on my Belmont trifecta.
It looks as if the teacher is responding to religion based critique of AGW by saying essentially: Look! Here are Christians who do believe in AGW.
What he is doing wrong is a lot: First, he should not be having a theology debate in a science class. Second, just because some Christians believe in AGW, does not mean that all must--after all, some do not and that doesn't mean that no Christian can believe in AGW. So, even if he wants to have a theology debate, it has already foundered on bad logic.
What the teacher ought to do is invite this student and all students to poke holes in AGW theory using a framework of science. It is a target-rich environment. But I don't think the "science" teacher really understands science, or religion either.
The Climate Change religion can't allow any heresy.
Megan McArdle has been tweeting for the past few days about how people who really believe that CAGW is a huge problem should be behaving if they want flyover country to actually buy what they're selling. It starts with cutting all air travel and ends with no more electric clothes dryers. The responses to her are hilarious. "You couldn't possibly ask NYers to convert to line drying!" "But face to face conference interactions help solve problems!" Her response? That's how flyover people feel about their trucks and larger homes.
She sniffed. She ran.
She persisted.
My spell checker changed Lindzen on me several times and I didn't catch it last time-- thanks for the correction. And many folks do write how CO2 affects climate see Princeton Dept of Geosciences site,but effect can be used as a verb when there is causation, but I was trying to suggest influence-- less direct and so chose affect. Climate Central notes the 10 warmest years on record since l998 or you can go to Global Climate Change at this site:https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/.
BTW Gahrie, the next peak glaciation should be 120,000+/- years from now, not just 20,000.
jimbino, I've already been through this with Ritmo, but since you're another bigoted ignoramus:
Georges Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître (17 July 1894 – 20 June 1966) was a Belgian Catholic Priest, astronomer and professor of physics at the Catholic University of Leuven. He proposed the theory of the expansion of the universe, widely misattributed to Edwin Hubble. He was the first to derive what is now known as Hubble's law and made the first estimation of what is now called the Hubble constant, which he published in 1927, two years before Hubble's article. Lemaître also proposed what became known as the Big Bang theory of the origin of the universe, which he called his "hypothesis of the primeval atom" or the "Cosmic Egg".[9]
Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming is a quasi-scientific enterprise undertaken by the Pro-Choice Church to establish its quasi-religious/moral philosophy and twilight faith for purposes of redistributive change.
BTW Gahrie, the next peak glaciation should be 120,000+/- years from now, not just 20,000.
Cool. That was just a wild assed guess of mine, since I was asked for one. (at least i admit that I am guessing)
the next peak glaciation should be 120,000+/- years from now, not just 20,000
They're both good guesses.
"People have been predicting doom since the dawn of History.....the one thing they have in common is that the predictions never come true."
That depends on who you are and where you're living.
the next peak glaciation should be 120,000+/- years from now, not just 20,000
I'm pretty sure it's scheduled for the day after tomorrow.
Ha! Just yesterday I linked to a clip from "Logan's Run" in the comments on the Al Gore post.
"Renew! Renew! Renew!"
"Man-caused climate change" is a means to separate the schmoes from their liberty and wealth without them putting up a fight. Nothing more.
Until "climate scientists" are able to reproduce the atmosphere in a laboratory environment and demonstrate through the scientific method that human activity is the only possible reason that the temperature rose, what 2 degrees, over more than a century, their insistence that it is so is nothing more than their particular brand of dogma.
And, as such, does not belong in a public school.
"'No one claims that humankind caused global warming.'
"Then why is it called Anthropogenic Global Warming??
"The anthro part is human caused."
Because, if you read my comment, you'll remember that I pointed out the claims are that human activity is contributing to and causing the acceleration of the climate warming that will happen in any event.
All activity on the planet contributes to the changes in climate over the eons. Humankind's significant presence and activity is not an exception to this.
Climate Central notes the 10 warmest years on record since l998
I don't suppose I could trouble you to explain to me exactly how that is known. For instance, how do we know it is warmer than it was a thousand years ago? Or is that subject off limits?
@Exiledonmainstreet
Your anecdote on Lamaître consists of nothing more than one non-sequitur following another. The fact that Lamaître, Luther, Gregor Mendel or Mother Theresa wore RC frocks does not make them Roman, Catholic, religious or non-scientists. The fact remains that the more religious a person, the less scientific he is, and vice versa, by simple definition.
Even a scientist can be as confused as you are, however. Neil deGrasse Tyson has said:
I'm constantly claimed by atheists. I find this intriguing. In fact, on my Wiki page - I didn't create the Wiki page, others did, and I'm flattered that people cared enough about my life to assemble it - and it said, 'Neil deGrasse is an atheist.'
Now if deGrasse is not an atheist, he has a belief in god, by simple definition. Logic and physics demand that he, too, explain himself.
I've noticed for several months now that the NYT has not enabled comments on stories that they felt they were going to get pushback on. I used to enjoy reading the comments more than the articles.
Your AI Ombudsman at work!
One thing that anybody can note about the "Hockey Stick" graph on which this claim is based is that the graph has adjusted instrument measurements grafted onto the temperature proxy measurements from the past. There are two things to note on that subject:
The proxy measurements, which are assumed to tell us past temperatures have not tracked the instrument temperatures in the modern era. You can satisfy yourself on this point by heading over to scholar.google.com and search on "divergence problem" and "climate."
In the modern era, the ground based instrument measurements have diverged from the satellite measurements, the adjusted and spotty thermometer measurements showing more warming than the satellite measurements which are far more comprehensive in coverage.
Even the ocean measurements from JASON, a project which sent out hundreds of probes to measure temps to a depth of 2000 meters failed to show any warming of the ocean, to which the "climate scientist" then replied that the warming, according to their models, was occurring below that depth, even though no such prediction was made prior to the publication of the results.
NASA is run by political appointees.
All activity on the planet contributes to the changes in climate over the eons. Humankind's significant presence and activity is not an exception to this.
I still find our time on this planet too small of sample size to truly comprehend what the future will hold.
Also, the only real solution is to eradicate humanity.
A funny quote, I think it was from the Climategate emails, if I am getting too technical, (believe me, I am holding back a lot of strong arguments because I know you couldn't follow them) when discussing the Hockey Stick was "we don't know whether it is warmer now than it was a thousand years ago.
On the subject or Robert Cook's precious Communists and global warming, it is often noted that Siberia shows a lot of warming in the thermometer data. During the Soviet Era, due to a reliance on scientific management, diesel fuel was shipped to outposts based on the temperatures recorded and transmitted to Moscow. So if they submitted temperatures lower than were actually seen, they were shipped a higher allotment of diesel and could keep warmer, or run their trucks more, or simply sell the extra fuel on the black market. These recorded temps, which had every incentive to be recorded as artificially low, serve as the unquestioned basis for the relative temperature today.
Easy peasy lemon squeezy to know the real state of affairs vis a vis the past!
"Climate change" is now the password that one must utter to be admitted to the right parties. A Party card.
Nobody knows or cares what it means. That is: the average customer uses the phrase as described above, to gain favor or avoid trouble. The inner circles are equally clueless --knowing science is rare and suspect, and discussing science can only lead to trouble. At the very center a handful of operators decide what data to hide, what to shift or shade, how to explain away the next disparity, how to smear and exile the next critics.
The game will end, and I hope fairly soon. But right now you see a flood tide of the most unthinking BS. Not much point in fighting it.
I was amazed that Trump stood by his campaign promise. It has caused much amusement as well as discomfiture.
The bottom line, I suppose, is that we wish our great-great-great-grandchildren well. But we are not going to beggar and starve ourselves to pay for a hypothetical, constructed by people no smarter and much less ethical than we, that claims they might be in some discomfort if we do X or fail to do Y.
" Humankind's significant presence and activity is not an exception to this."
The invention of agriculture is thought by some to be the most significant effect by humans. That is well before the Industrial Revolution.
It's interesting that a search for references is frustrated by all the Google searches turning up the effect of warming on agriculture. That is not what is asked. There are references, like Jared Dimond, but they are too much work to find,.
Some discussion here.
Gwen “sniffed” to her friends? How does the Times know this? Isn’t the word only used for a derisive effect? How does one sniff words? And why would the Times use that word to describe however Gwen communicated to her friends?
Apparently Al Gore was asked the other day why his 10-year prophecy of ecological disaster (in his 2006 "Inconvenient Truth") had not panned out. He dodged the question and pointed to various squirrels, among them the scary fact that Greenland is losing "a cubic kilometer of ice a day" and therefore we are in huge trouble.
Wikipedia informs us that Greenland ice cap is about 2.7 million cubic kilometers. Personally I think Gore's claim is about 100% high --the reported net loss of ice cap is said to be about 200 cubic kilometers (roughly a gigaton per cubic km) a year-- but whatever.
If you take Gore's scary number, and do the 4th grade arithmetic, you find that Greenland's ice cap will be gone in about 10,000 years.
We invented agriculture about 6,000 years ago.
Yes, I'm worried now.
"The fact remains that the more religious a person, the less scientific he is, and vice versa, by simple definition."
By your definition, which is the definition made by a simpleton and bigot.
This is a list of Catholic scientists. Many of them lived in the 20th century. Some are contemporaries.
All of them are far more accomplished and intelligent than you are.
You do not have the right to define them as "non-religious" because they were and are scientists. Far more brilliant people than you have discerned there is no conflict between being a scientist and a believer.
"Zichichi was born in Trapani, Sicily, in 1929. He has collaborated on several important discoveries in the field of sub-nuclear physics and has worked in some of the most important research laboratories in the world (Fermilab in Chicago, CERN in Geneva, etc.). He is known to the Italian public for his popularization of scientific ideas, both as the author of numerous books and essays and because of his appearances on television programs. Zichichi places an emphasis on trying to demonstrate that there is no contradiction between science and the Catholic faith."
Are you, jimbino, going to say Zichichi is not really a scientist or not really a Catholic?
Oops, here's the list. Not that jimbino will look at it or anything. He's far too comfortable with his own bigotry and ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Catholic_scientists
"Also, the only real solution is to eradicate humanity."
Oh, we'll become extinct eventually.
Virtually Unknown observes: Mockturtle
I am asking you politely to please never address me directly again.
Virtually Unknown observes: Mockturtle
I am asking you politely to please never address me directly again.
6/5/17, 12:46 PM
?
So the teaching in this "science" class is not about how to do science but that one should accept what is said by one's betters?
It's a science class, so you should be able to show the student why something is true. I don't remember a science teacher ever saying, "We know it's true because they said it is, and they're really good at working with data." Show the kid the actual science. If she doesn't believe it, oh well, get over yourself.
And if you can't show her the science, the problem isn't with her. It's either that you don't know what you're talking about or that you are wasting time trying to teach science that the students don't yet have the foundation to understand.
Climate activists want to conflate the FACT that it is warming with POLICIES to solve the problem. One can agree with the facts and yet believe the impacts are not as severe as claimed or that the proposed solutions will not work. Of course one might also believe that the models are too uncertain to be a basis for policy. The biology teacher was steam-rolling over all of that in order to ensure conformity.
@ Exiledonmainstreet and @Robert Cook.
The Pope and I are of the same mind on this. He says that not all who call themselves Catholics are indeed Catholic and I say that not all who call themselves scientists are indeed scientists.
Look, Copernicus, Galileo and Martin Luther called themselves Catholics. As did others of greater mettle, including Giordano Bruno and Jan Hus, whom the Pope burned at the stake. Einstein was both an atheist and a Jew.
Some nowadays called Christian were in fact lifelong Jews, including Jesus Christ himself along with all his disciples.
Your calling me names won't change the science and won't serve at all in showing that religion and science aren't mutually exclusive.
Since these are a bunch of Redneck kids, would they even understand how to sniff other than drugs, glue, etc during a convo?
That's an old term. The kids would never use that term.
the next peak glaciation should be 120,000+/- years from now, not just 20,000
I'm pretty sure it's scheduled for the day after tomorrow.
If you look at graph of glaciations over the past 5 million years or so, it's pretty clear the earth is in a cold spell punctuated by a few relatively warm interglacials every 100,000 years (more or less). The current interglacial has gone on about a long as interglacials have traditionally lasted (it's a big range when you only live 90 or so years), and is thus poised, in a geologic sense, for a sudden plunge into a glaciation. However, the peak glaciation seems to occur late in the glaciation, about the time Chicago would be buried under a mile of ice.
You can both be right. We could plunge in a glacial period next winter, and the glacial peak might not occur for 100,000 years.
Pliestocene glaciations
Cold comfort.
If we (or our descendants) are extremely lucky, global warming has forestalled the next glaciation.
Oh, we'll become extinct eventually.
You know...if I hadn't have already given you a nickname......I'd be calling your Marvin these days.
or that you are wasting time trying to teach science that the students don't yet have the foundation to understand.
This is what I thought too.
@Dr K - have enjoyed the work of Jared Diamond. Read his "Guns, Germs, and Steel" more than once, but had forgotten his "The Third Chimpanzee", which I also liked. The linked article appears to be a nice summary of parts of his "Guns" book. Of esp relented here though was this section:
Why then but not earlier?
The human lineage diverged from that of chimpanzees around 6,000,000 years ago. For the next 99.8% of our separate history, there was no agriculture, until it emerged independently in up to nine areas on four continents in the short span of 6,000 years between 8500 and 2500 BC. All of those nearly-simultaneous independent origins seem to be too much of a coincidence. What triggered agriculture repeatedly then, and why had it never arisen during the previous 6,000,000 years?
...
Only behaviourally modern Homo sapiens was biologically and mentally capable of the technological advances and foraging efficiency that resulted in intensified hunting and gathering, and (sometimes) in food production40. But behaviourally modern Homo sapiens did not emerge until around 55,000–80,000 years ago (the exact date is debated), so we should say that the independent simultaneous emergences were not concentrated in the last 0.2% of hominid history, but 'only' in the last 15% of modern human history. Still, even that seems too concentrated a bout of simultaneous emergences to be coincidental. Was it just that the origins of behaviourally modern Homo sapiens set clocks ticking by chance at the same rate all over the globe? That strains credulity, especially as intensified hunter–gatherer economies failed to arise in more areas than the areas in which they did arise
...
Against that background of gradual change, a trigger that may have caused intensification and food production to emerge only after the end of the Pleistocene would have been the end-of-Pleistocene climate changes in temperature, rainfall and unpredictability. These changes could have triggered the broad-spectrum reduction in diet14, 15, 16, 17, and made agriculture possible in areas where it would have been impossible during the Ice Ages (for example, expanding Fertile Crescent woodland habitats with understories of wild cereals41). Once food production had thus begun, the autocatalytic nature of the many changes accompanying domestication (for example, more food stimulating population growth that required still more food) made the transition rapid. By this interpretation, the independent emergences of food production are no longer remarkably simultaneous — they could not have happened before the end of the Pleistocene (11000 BC), and after the end of the Pleistocene they occurred at very different times, ranging from about 8500 BC (in the Fertile Crescent) to about 2500 BC (eastern North America). Most of the links in this speculative hypothesis are in obvious need of testing.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा