Let Everyone Hear The Whole Story On Climate Science
00ZNB
science
Tom Harris
May 9, 2008
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2993
Shooting the messenger of alternative climate science views not
constructive - students can only decide who to believe if they are
permitted to hear all rational arguments
Mike De Souza's piece, "Climate-change skeptics target kids", published
in various versions in mainstream newspapers across Canada, is a classic
example of how the climate debate has mostly been reduced to a war of
emotive, and politically loaded, words.
Thanks to environmental lobbyists untrained in science, the grandiose
proclamations of politicians who don't care about science, and, most
importantly, a ratings-obsessed media, we are on the verge of wasting
yet billions more trying to 'stop climate change', a physical
impossibility in a world where climate was changing eons before we were
even here to think about it.
While most adults in society feel they have no alternative but to
succumb to the overwhelming forces of political correctness of one form
or another simply to earn a living, our educational institutions must
resist this tendency in what they teach students.
Teachers should encourage young people to learn all they can about the
world around them and then, independently, make up their own minds as to
who, or what, to believe, or whether they believe anyone at all.
Mainstream media can help, instead of hinder, this process if they would
address crucially important issues such as climate change in an unbiased
fashion, instead of so often giving preference to climate alarmism and
employing phraseology that hinders rational thought.
"An American think tank has sent out ." - these first words in De Souza's
piece about the distribution to schools of alternative views in the
climate debate seem chosen to elicit a negative emotional reaction from
Canadians proud of our country, its independence and our desire to make
our own decisions without undue interference from the United States.
The fact that the poll distributed by the Heartland Institute originates
with two German environmental scientists - Dennis Bray (GKSS Institute
of Coastal Research in Geesthacht) and Hans von Storch (climatology
professor - University of Hamburg) - who conducted the poll entirely
independently of Heartland, isn't mentioned by De Souza. He also doesn't
reveal that Heartland merely summarized the results after the fact in an
easy to read format (see www.heartland.org/pdf/2086111.pdf), for which
teachers interested in giving their students a full view of this
important field are undoubtedly grateful.
Next De Souza writes that the mail-out is "urging [teachers] to teach
their students that scientists are exaggerating how human activity is
the driving force behind global warming." He references "scientists" as
if they were some sort of a homogenous group with a single opinion -
this is part of the consensus myth permeating this debate, a myth De
Souza allows to be repeated by Ottawa science teacher Eric Betteridge,
without critique. "Scientists" say lots of things about climate
change - very few agree with the sensational assertions of The World
Nuclear Society, The Sierra Club of Canada, David Suzuki, Al Gore,
Elizabeth May, and current Environment Minister John Baird, and many say
they are flat wrong. Most climate scientists are, quite sensibly,
unsure about future climate. There is obviously no consensus and this
fact, uncomfortable though it may be for climate campaigners and
governments, should not be hidden from students.
De Souza quotes the Sierra Club as asserting that the mail-out from the
"American think tank [mentioned again, in case readers missed the U.S.
connection a few paragraphs earlier] . distributing misinformation" isn't
balanced and that it creates the "illusion" of a scientific debate. De
Souza doesn't point out that Sierra's climate campaign materials are
anything but balanced or that the science debate is, in reality,
intense.
Next referenced is "the conclusions reached by governments and
scientists from around the world in their 2007 assessment of the latest
peer-reviewed research on climate change". What De Souza conveniently
ignores is the fact that many of the scientists involved in this study
disagreed with many of these "conclusions" and that much of the most
recent "peer-reviewed research" was entirely ignored by the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (the UN body which coordinated
the reports).
De Souza reports that Betteridge is upset that "someone would try to
promote this material to children in the classroom." Are Betteridge and
De Souza unaware that climate campaigners, including Suzuki and the
Canadian government, have been promoting their material in the classroom
for years, even highlighting absurd Suzuki quotes in Grade 8 science
text books? Or are they simply hoping readers don't look at their
children's school books or the walls of their classrooms?
Finally, De Souza brings up a complete red herring - Heartland at one
time or another supposedly received funding from an oil company. But
the company in question also dedicates millions of dollars to their
"Educating Women and Girls Initiative", programs to encourage minorities
and women to pursue math and science-related degrees, and basic
education and literacy programs in the developing world. Does De Souza
consider those educational activities similarly tainted and so
inappropriate? How about Heartland's most vocal critic, DeSmogBlog, a
group operated by a communications firm whose head just happens to be
the Chair of the David Suzuki Foundation, a group which lists oil and
gas companies among their donors. When the Sierra Club representative
said "It looks like they're [the Canadian government] listening to the
Heartland Institute and other oil-industry-sponsored think tanks", why
did De Souza not ask if she was referring to the David Suzuki
Foundation, a group the current Conservative government is clearly
afraid of?
Canadian government spokesperson Chisholm Pothier rounds out the
propaganda by making a politically convenient, but meaningless assertion
in De Souza's piece that, "the government is not taking advice from
people who question climate change." The government, and anyone even
remotely familiar with the topic, know full well that neither Heartland,
nor any of the scientists they are helping communicate with students,
"question climate change". They simply question the degree to which
humans contribute to climate change, a question no one, outside of
politicians and activists who apparently consider an understanding of
science immaterial to the topic, yet knows the answer to.
De Souza's piece should be entirely discounted by thinking Canadians,
especially teachers who understand the importance of exposing students
to what researchers in the field are actually discovering, independent
of political correctness. That environmental lobby groups, politicians
and many media want to restrict what young people are allowed to hear
about climate science should be all the more reason students and their
parents must insist that teachers have sufficient respect for their
pupils to expose them to the real world, not merely material carefully
fabricated by activists to foster a compliant population, too
uninformed, and too frightened, to think for themselves.
Tom Harris is an Ottawa-based mechanical engineer and Executive Director
of the International Climate Science Coalition - see
http://www.climatescienceinternational.org.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
". researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany
report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years,
accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth's temperature over
the last 100 years."
http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=287279412587175
V-for-Vendicar
"00ZNB" <00...@ddoooo.com> wrote
> http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2993
Ahahahahah.. The BLOG that calls itself a "newspaper" that is on record as
claiming that 911 was a MAFIA hit.
Bonzo = MMMMMMMMMOOOOOOOOOOORRRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNN
Meanwhile back in the reality based community...
View with mono spaced font.
NO CORRELATION between sunspot number and global average temperature
1958 -> 2007
|
|
| *
|
| * * *
| * *
|
| * *
|
^|
T| *
e| *
m| *
p| * *
e|
r| * *
a| *
t| o o
u| oo oooo o ooo o oo o oo oooo oo o ooo
r| * * * *
e| *
| * * * *
| * *
| * * *
| * * *
| * *
| *
| *
| * *
|
| *
| *
+-----------------------CO2->----------------------------------------------
* = Data
0 = Computed Regression
Y = Mx+B
M = 4.976998E-05 B = 14.18044
Correlation Coefficient .01161709
Coffee in Madrid
"V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
I love these pie charts.
Science looooves to tell the TRUTH!
No room for "believing" here.
Whata Fool
>In article <0tJWj.940$79....@read1.cgocable.net>,
> "V-for-Vendicar" <Jus...@ExecuteTheBushTraitor.com> wrote:
>
>> View with mono spaced font.
>>
>> NO CORRELATION between sunspot number and global average temperature
>> 1958 -> 2007
>> |
>> |
>> | *
>> |
>> | * * *
>> | * *
>> |
>> | * *
>> |
>> ^|
>> T| *
>> e| *
>> m| *
>> p| * *
>> e|
>> r| * *
>> a| *
>> t|
>> u| MMMMMooMooooMoMMoooRRoRooRRRoRRRRooRRRRooooNNooNNNNoNoooNNNNNNNNN
>> r| * * * *
>> e| *
>> | * * * *
>> | * *
>> | * * *
>> | * * *
>> | * *
>> | *
>> | *
>> | * *
>> |
>> | *
>> | *
>> +-----------------------CO2->----------------------------------------------
>> * = Data
>> 0 = Computed Regression
>>
>> Y = Mx+B
>> M = 4.976998E-05 B = 14.18044
>> Correlation Coefficient .01161709
>
>I love these pie charts.
>
>Science looooves to tell the TRUTH!
>
>No room for "believing" here.
Just wait till the temperature goes above 15, just wait.
But don't hold your breath.
V-for-Vendicar
"Whata Fool" <wh...@fool.ami> wrote
> Just wait till the temperature goes above 15, just wait.
> But don't hold your breath.
The fool refuses to address the issue of the lack of correlation between
sunspots and global average temperatures, even though he has repeatedly
claimed such a correlation.
Now here is the correlation between CO2 Levels and Global Average
Temperaturs that his Brothers in crime have dishonestly claimed is negative.
View with mono spaced font.
Correlation between Atmospheric CO2 concentration and
Global Average temperature. 1958 -> 2007
| *
|
| * * *
| * * o
| o
| * o *
| o
| o o
^| * oo
T| * * o
e| * oo **
m| * o o *
p| ooo
e| * * * o o
r| o *
a| oo *
t| * oo
u| * * ooo * *
r| o o *
e|* ** * o o * *
| * oo * *
| * *o *
| * *o oo*
| o*o*
| ooo *
|oo *
| * *
|
| *
| *
+---------------------------CO2->----------------------------------------