Staredit Network

The past week in my science class has been hell for me. My teacher decided that we didn't know enough about global warming, and spent the entire week on a subject not even in the curriculum. She fed us lies and half truths, and I can say that my classmates ate it without thinking twice. I didn't care much when she brought up her liberal politics before because she didn't go too in-depth. But now she's crossed the line. She made us write essays on global warming. And she pretends that she's not indoctrinating us and she's giving us a free choice by saying you write about whether or not you believe in global warming, but clearly shows disdain in those who don't and only gives us material supporting the global warming crap. Here's the argument she gave us against global warming. I'll quote her as best I remember.

Or that was the jist of it anyway. So basically she says that eViL oil industry is putting out a better arguement against the global warming community. And I don't know where she gets this crap about most Americans not believing. Last I checked, most Americans did believe.

I'm serious, I can't take it anymore. I want to bash her head every time I see her.

Personally, I think that the whole Global Warming thing is stupid. We all know the earth goes through warming and cooling trends. We may just be going through a warming trend now. Hell, 30 years ago, we thought we were going into an ice age. Shows how much scientists just cater their reports to those who sponsor them.

What kind of science is this class you're in?

I personally think that teaching scientific things such as that is more important than the curriculum. Which is more interesting, the current events of the world or an old event that occurred long ago. The only problem I see is that the teacher is quite biased. If she gave equal time to both sides without showing disdain for either side, I would say that what she did was quite beneficial.

Wouldn't it be better if you gave examples of the "lies and half truths"? I'd like to point out that the controversy over global warming isn't if it's happening or not but what's causing it.


Such as?


That's because you don't see any scientific papers that claim the current global warming is not caused by human activities.

I do believe that humans are having an effect on the atmosphere content, and thus, by increasing carbon levels and decreasing forest levels, may be causing some temperature increase. But I also shake my head at the radicals who think we're all going to kill ourselves off in the next couple of decades simply because of pollution. I saw this documentary made in 1980 that said by the year 2005, the amazon basin will be completely destroyed. It's not. And that's just one example. Every estimate I've ever heard that predicted some sort of terrible atrocity by our own making has been way off.

Like I said, I do believe we are causing some problems, but no where near the immediate life threatening estimates I hear sometimes. Besides, the planet will be fine. It's survived mass plauges, meteors, droughts, and spikes in global volcanic activity. In the eyes of the earth (granted it has eyes ;p), we're not much more than a mild cold, or an itch.

She did. She told us that humans were causing it, but didn't give us any proof.

I don't understand what you mean.

While I've never seen any papers, I've read articles that refer to papers and interview scientists.

Go search Science for "Global Warming"

Personally, I don't care if the top scientists all say that Global Warming is a valid theory. It doesn't mean anything. We, as humans, naturally make mistakes. If you're familiar with the story of Eugenics, you'll know this to be VERY true.

Oh God, how true.

But have any of you read State of Fear by Michael Crichton? It argues that global warming doesn't exist. And although, obviously, we can't take a work of fiction as an authoritative document, you might want to have a look at its bibliography and list of sources, in which it cites a whole lot of papers claiming global warming is not a result of human actions.

Let each person choose their side and defend it, that's what I say. Don't make everyone research and write papers on a side they may or may not believe in.

Both me and KK have read it. I don't have a copy around, though.

Its a good book I have a copy upstairs.

We have both kinds of people....my math teacher doesn't believe in global warming as strongly as your teacher does...but he just doesn't push it on others.

If she's making you do crazy stuff, and says she's giving you "free choice" about it...then write the best damn global warming paper ever. Have people help you out at school to make it awesome and scientifically sound.....like a little paper of defiance

Because she is in no place to do all of that stuff, whether or not she is actually right.

My math teacher like to use this joke against global warming....
"Scientists say: 'temperatures have been increasing since the 18th century'. The number of sea pirates have also gone down since the 18th century. Obviously, sea pirates keep down global warming."

I remember we had a huge flame thread over global warming once...it was fun

You mean a key belief of Pastafarianism?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Pchart.jpg

This is hardly an example of "lies and half truths."


Really. I thought you said:

I'm beginning to suspect that you're choosing to not believe in the proof offered and thus, you conclude there is no proof.


Example of negative treatment.


I'm not sure how Eugenics applies to this. While I agree that all scientists saying something does not make it true, I disagree on your implied argument of ignoring the evidence. History has documented temperatures, including those who wouldn't favor either side of the global warming issue (because such an issue did not exist back then) and it shows that global warming has occured. This could be just a trend in the warm up-cool down pattern or it could be attributed to human involveness.

As for you calling global warming a "theory", explain.


Before saying that, you might want to actually give a list of the papers it cites (or a small portion that is able to prove your point). "A lot" means nothing, as argued by Killer_Kow(MM). Quantity will never beat quality in science.

Ah, right you are. Here's a sample of papers and books; I'll give authors and names:



But I think we're getting a bit off topic.

The original discussion was on indoctrination, and I've got a bit to say about that. Notably, that it really pisses me off, but seems somehow symptomatic of our times. These days, you don't see people having discussions on what the book's about; you see them discussing its social implications. The newspeople don't report what's happened; they report what they think is going to happen and how, obviously, the government could easily prevented this, etc. I want to know the news, not your opinions on it.

This holds for schools also. If you want people to write a research report on a topic, then let them pick their side. Not only will you be giving them more freedom and letting them choose for themselves, you'll be teaching them a valuable lesson in debating skills: writing a thesis and defending it. If you want to press your philosophy on me, have the decency to be straightforward about it and put it where it belongs: an opinion column, a debate, or a soapbox in the street. Don't try to disguise it as fact and preach it in a classroom.

When I was writing my paper on the Kyoto Protocol for my Model United Nations class, I looked to the sources of State of Fear in order to find some solid evidence against global warming. The sites he gets the graphs from really aren't that compelling, and the cases, as stated in the book, are the cases in which global warming isn't exhibited at all. If you search some other areas, you will find that it definitely appears as if global warming has occurred though. It was a good book though, and it was nice to have the other side.

Global warming is a painful subject to learn about in science class.
Give me physics any day.

I want to learn about Global Warming. With all these debates about it, half of us are experts on it .

Perhaps that's really why the global warming debate is really getting nowhere, eh?

We're all experts but in opposite directions. It's a tug of war game. With two Terminators pulling on the ends of the rope.

These guys are idiots are some things. But this one makes some good points.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...penn+and+teller

Hey, I learned something! Funny, because it actually kinda pertains to this thread...

I don't think I would classify anyone on this site as an expert climatologist, or even meteorologist for that matter.

The only problem I see with the whole thing is that America uses 1/4 of the worlds energy, which I see as incredibly wasteful. (Considering how much resources go into worthless junk like advertisements.) Our country is pompous and needs to tone it down some.

Statistics ftw!

I like the example with FSM, as it shows how people often link things as being cause and effect of eachother when they happen at the same time. As if there were no such thing as a simple coincidence =P Unfortunatly, sometimes it's all we have (aka theories).


Well I'm glad the planet will be fine, but I'm more worried about the people living on it. There's good reason to be concerned about these things. I'm not sure, but I've always thought that scientests were telling us it was getting warmer because pollution was damaging our atmosphere (thus the Sun is affecting us more). I mean, there's obvious observable evidence that there is far less Ozone from when everyone was using CFCs (which were later proven to take apart ozone and banned in nearly every country). That's enough for me to raise my eyebrow at pollution.

I guess I'd be convinced global warming wasn't a result of human activity if there were some other explanation. But as far as I know, there isn't.