Yes, it's true. We have new science standards being implemented that will ensure that are kiddies are "empowered" with the knowledge that climate change is real and is caused by man-made activity. See if you can get through the promo on the below link. It only lasts three minutes, but it will seem like 3 days. Maybe you'll enjoy the happy background music, but I doubt it.
http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/04/12/new-science-standards-have-americas-educational-publishers-turning-page/?test=latestnews
"Chaaange". At least nobody said, "It's about empowering our children...."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Its hard science Gary, even if you find it politically inconvenient.
It could be mis-taught, but it should be taught.
You are making as much sense on this issue as the "creation science" charlatans demanding that science class teach "both sides of the controversy." There is plenty of controversy as to the details, but not as to the categories.
I seem to recall that there is wide disagreement on the issue. Oh yeah. Al Gore said that the science was settled. I guess that means it's clear to teach it in school.
Sairlys,
Again I have to remind you that the science you mention is voodoo pseudo-science on AGW. The methods used to conclude that their is global warming is seriously flawed and in some cases, fraud. I can say this because I am a certified researcher with a Ph.D. from a tier 1 university. I also teach research at the graduate level. So, take a serious look at the ideologically driven pseudo-science that you use for your conclusions.
Squid, Ph.D.
Squid, who died and made you God?
I've read up on the science a good deal, being the author of one published reference article on the IPCC, and another on Climate Change, both for reputable publishers that would not have accepted the article, nor paid me for my work, if I didn't thoroughly cover all the angles.
There are outliers in all directions, including alarmists who are certain we are all going to fry within fifty years unless we shut down all power plants yesterday -- which is indeed absurd. Real life, real science, the real universe, is a lot more complex than that.
But the reports from the IPCC are thoroughly vetted and cross-checked, and the general trends and patterns are clear.
You make about as much sense as the "creation science" cretins counting how many people with a Ph.D they can put on their letterhead. I notice you didn't mention what field your Ph.D is in, or what exactly you teach at the graduate level. But I do know any given individual Ph.D, in any field, can allow their own ideological prejudices to overwhelm their knowledge of facts -- which you seem to have done (in the absence of further detail.)
Oh, uh, Gary... there is "wide disagreement on the issue" of evolutionary biology also... but there isn't a shred of science to the denials.
Siarlys,
All the Ph.D. means in this case, is the ability to analyze good research from bad. The research for the IPCC studies had questionable data, which was hidden from other scientists, who had to get a freedom of information act filed to get the data; The methodology used in the research was flawed and the conclusions made from the data and faulty methodology could not be substantiated. So, a hypothisis, to draw a conclusion in this science is very shaky. Now this is science.
Squid
Squid,
Aren't PhDs also among those who believe in man-made global warming? And aren't they, generally speaking, actual experts in that field? What makes you so right and them so wrong?
Curious that you won't name what your field is.
Squid won't name what his field is because he is claiming an expertise he doesn't have. It is true that anyone who really EARNS a Ph.D (a badly devalued status, but some people still earn them fair and square) learns something about analyzing data. But Squid is pontificating that any fact inconvenient to his prejudices can't be true, catering to the minority of Ph.D's who in some manner sustain his preference, while ignoring the vast majority who don't, and trying to use his own Ph.D to say "Trust me, I'm a professional."
Squid and Gary deny global warming, not because they have any factual basis, but because
a) Al Gore said it, so it must be false.
b) All the people I vote for denounce it, so it can't be true.
c) My party caters to vested interests who would have to spend some money to comply with reasonable precautionary measures and improvements, so let's not bother.
d) Now that we've gone out on this limb, it would be such a blow to the ego to admit that the environmentalists are right -- even though "cap and trade" was something Republicans boasted of inventing in 1992, as a better way to bring down acid rain than the "command and control" model attributed to the Democrats.
Squid is a psychiatrist.
Squid is a psychiatrist?
I might have known...
Having a PhD in Psychiatry doesn't make Squid wrong, but just as I'd trust him in matters of psychiatry over somebody who had a PhD in climate science, I think that I'm going to trust the climate scientists over him on this issue.
Which ones do you trust, Siarlys? The ones at E Anglia University? Or Al Gore himself, noted scientist that he is.
Al Gore and East Anglia? Do you think that's it when it comes to those who agree that we're contributing to climate change?
This link: http://www.ucsusa.org/ssi/climate-change/scientific-consensus-on.html provides a statement from 18 scientific associations, none of them East Anglia or Al Gore.
(What's with this obsession with Al Gore? Nobody is even talking about him.)
Post a Comment