Jump to content

Global Warming


Guest Loki
 Share

Recommended Posts

Since we are discussing the topic of the indoctrination of students by their teachers, I'd like to know why it's okay to treat global warming as an absolute truth?

Everyone can have their own opinion on the subject, but the truth is, the scientific community is not in unanimous agreement about the veracity of this phenomena. Certainly those that speak against global warning are dismissed and shouted down by the "tolerant powers that be", but that by itself doesn't dispel the argument.

Ask yourself if you feel that the earth MIGHT go through long term climate changes, both hot and cold? Not whether you believe it or not, is it POSSIBLE?

Yet my kids tell me all the time about what they are taught in school with regards to global warming.

So, again, unless a teacher shows each side to an argument and encourages the student to make up their own mind, and do their own research, isn't he/she doing exactly what this other teacher is being chastised for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing the topic of the indoctrination of students by their teachers, I'd like to know why it's okay to treat global warming as an absolute truth?

Everyone can have their own opinion on the subject, but the truth is, the scientific community is not in unanimous agreement about the veracity of this phenomena. Certainly those that speak against global warning are dismissed and shouted down by the "tolerant powers that be", but that by itself doesn't dispel the argument.

Ask yourself if you feel that the earth MIGHT go through long term climate changes, both hot and cold? Not whether you believe it or not, is it POSSIBLE?

Yet my kids tell me all the time about what they are taught in school with regards to global warming.

So, again, unless a teacher shows each side to an argument and encourages the student to make up their own mind, and do their own research, isn't he/she doing exactly what this other teacher is being chastised for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing the topic of the indoctrination of students by their teachers, I'd like to know why it's okay to treat global warming as an absolute truth?

Everyone can have their own opinion on the subject, but the truth is, the scientific community is not in unanimous agreement about the veracity of this phenomena.  Certainly those that speak against global warning are dismissed and shouted down by the "tolerant powers that be", but that by itself doesn't dispel the argument.

Ask yourself if you feel that the earth MIGHT go through long term climate changes, both hot and cold?  Not whether you believe it or not, is it POSSIBLE?

Yet my kids tell me all the time about what they are taught in school with regards to global warming.

So, again, unless a teacher shows each side to an argument and encourages the student to make up their own mind, and do their own research, isn't he/she doing exactly what this other teacher is being chastised for?

Dude.. Go get yourself an aquarium... invest LOTS of money in stocking it with marine fish.....

and then pour some motor oil in and see what happens.

geee.. the environmental impact of the years following the industrial revolution sure is probably a natural climate cycle! no.. REALLY! just liek your dead marine fish are just NAPPING!

Yea, let's have another scopes monkey trial so that you flat-earthers can convince everyonet hat gravity isn't real either.

After all.. WHO SAYS ACID RAIN ISNT JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL HYPE AGENDA MEANT TO CONTROL AND DISCOURAGE SMOKESTACK BUSINESS!?!?!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Julius M.
Since we are discussing the topic of the indoctrination of students by their teachers, I'd like to know why it's okay to treat global warming as an absolute truth?

No scientist claims absolute truth, just clear evidence. There is general agreement among climate scientists that global warming is real.

These scientists are normal people doing their best at a job. Also, they are smart people who spend their lives studying a subject. Some hack paid off by industry doesn't have the same weight, and shouldn't.

Can we stop assuming our fellow countrymen are part of some conspiracy to destroy us? Can we move past the hype and paranoia to accept that scientists might be reasonable people who have good data (verifiable facts) behind their beliefs, and want soceity to be safe and prosperous?

You wouldn't teach baking in shop class. Science class should reflect the state of the art, not fringe theories with no real support by the scientific community. It's common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since we are discussing the topic of the indoctrination of students by their teachers, I'd like to know why it's okay to treat global warming as an absolute truth?

Everyone can have their own opinion on the subject, but the truth is, the scientific community is not in unanimous agreement about the veracity of this phenomena.  Certainly those that speak against global warning are dismissed and shouted down by the "tolerant powers that be", but that by itself doesn't dispel the argument.

Ask yourself if you feel that the earth MIGHT go through long term climate changes, both hot and cold?  Not whether you believe it or not, is it POSSIBLE?

Yet my kids tell me all the time about what they are taught in school with regards to global warming.

So, again, unless a teacher shows each side to an argument and encourages the student to make up their own mind, and do their own research, isn't he/she doing exactly what this other teacher is being chastised for?

Because the dissenters are few and the RESEARCH backs up the science. Global warming is a fact. The extent of it and what has to be done about it are what's debated. I really don't understand what the harm would be to burn cleaner fuels and use renewable resources for our energy needs? The only people who don't want us to burn less fossil fuels are the oil companies.

Isn't it obvious that our impact on the environment should be minimized where possible? We should all be driving cars that get 60-100 miles to the gallon or using some other form or fuel. It's our descendants that will have to live in the world we leave them. Let's hope it's safe, clean and a little more at peace. It's the repsonsible thing to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Calybos
So, again, unless a teacher shows each side to an argument and encourages the student to make up their own mind, and do their own research, isn't he/she doing exactly what this other teacher is being chastised for?

Not when there's an overwhelming scientific consensus, as there is for global warming, evolution, atomic theory, etc. etc.

Anyone can have an opinion; but it takes a trained scientist to actually determine the truth. Science is not up for political debate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest an American in Texas

No one doubts that the earth goes through long-term climate cycles. The evidence for that is irrefutable. The debate is about whether human technologies are significant contributors, hastening or even triggering the warming trend we are seeing now. And make no mistake, we're undoubtedly seeing it. A strong consensus has emerged among scientists that hydrocarbon emissions are indeed a significant contributor. I might add that the issue has been politicized by the right in a way quite similar to the creation/evolution war, and any real resistance that remains is almost exclusively from the right.

The scientific community is seldom in unanimous agreement about anything, but consensus has emerged on this one.

I don't know what you mean by the"tolerant powers that be." And asking whether something is possible might not really be the right question. Better to ask "is it likely?" Or better yet, "is it supported by the preponderance of the evidence?"

Leigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The scientific community is seldom in unanimous agreement about anything, but consensus has emerged on this one.

I don't know what you mean by the"tolerant powers that be."  And asking whether something is possible might not really be the right question.  Better to ask "is it likely?" Or better yet, "is it supported by the preponderance of the evidence?"

If we were to treat science as a popularity contest, we'd see stupidities like the flat-earth theory and "creation science" taught alongside real science as equally valid hypotheses.

Thankfully, we don't... because they're not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude.. Go get yourself an aquarium...  invest LOTS of money in stocking it with marine fish.....

and then pour some motor oil in and see what happens.

geee.. the environmental impact of the years following the industrial revolution sure is probably a natural climate cycle!  no.. REALLY!  just liek your dead marine fish are just NAPPING!

Yea, let's have another scopes monkey trial so that you flat-earthers can convince everyonet hat gravity isn't real either.

After all.. WHO SAYS ACID RAIN ISNT JUST ANOTHER LIBERAL HYPE AGENDA MEANT TO CONTROL AND DISCOURAGE SMOKESTACK BUSINESS!?!?!

Well, I bought the aquarium, filled it with lots of fish, and dumped the motor oil; you were right, the fish died.

Now how does this experiment prove or disprove global warming. Your scientific methodology leaves a little work. I am not even saying that global warming isn't happening, only that it is still undecided. You can tell me it is generally accepted, and there is a consensus, but I don't believe it. The naysayers are simply not invited to the debate, and dismissed by academia at large. The key point being that they are dismissed, and not challenged or refuted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I bought the aquarium, filled it with lots of fish, and dumped the motor oil; you were right, the fish died.

Now how does this experiment prove or disprove global warming.  Your scientific methodology leaves a little work.  I am not even saying that global warming isn't happening, only that it is still undecided.  You can tell me it is generally accepted, and there is a consensus, but I don't believe it.  The naysayers are simply not invited to the debate, and dismissed by academia at large.  The key point being that they are dismissed, and not challenged or refuted.

That's because the research doesn't support the naysayers.

Please explain to me how being careful with the environment and being proactive about reducing pollution is a bad thing?

Why do you think all those countries signed the Kyoto Protocols? They felt like it? They we tricked by scientists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest, you can disbelieve or believe whatever fiction you want, but the fact is, climatologists are in agreement. Do some research, for Pete's sake.

Something tells me you're also a creationist. They're usually the ones claiming that their junk science is "dismissed" by real scientists. Oh, what a shock. Scientists are persuaded by evidence, not your gut feelings or sacred myths (whether you get them from W or from the Bronze Age).

Unless you're a climatologist or can present compelling evidence, or at least some links to peer-reviewed articles, your opinion is *ahem* unpersuasive. You might want to look at what people who study climate for a living are saying.

Leigh

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...