|
njlauren -> RE: AZ Bill would allow teachers to dismiss global warming (and other antiscience legislation) (2/16/2013 3:43:08 PM)
|
There is such a thing as settled science (for example that gravity exists) but it is also subject to change. Revolutions can happen, but for example, Einstein's work was based on work others were doing, too, planck's work had a major impact as did others, and experimenters were already showing holes in newtonian physics (for example, black body radiation/the photoelectric effect, which Einstein ironically won his Nobel prize for, not relativity). Quantum theory blew away a lot of traditional physics as well.
With global climate change (Al Gore was a fucking retard for using the name global warming, because then every hayseed farmer when a colder then normal winter happens, says "Yuck yuck Global warming, hee hee " there is real science behind it, there is a mountain of evidence that the climate is rapidly changing, and there is a historical record to tell us this doesn't fit the pattern of warming after an ice age.There is zero evidence, despite what Faux News proclaims, that this is solar radiation (solar radiation levels have been monitored for 50 years,and fluctuations measured cannot do what we are seeing). The models that the right wing types love to make fun of are projections trying to figure out what will happen, and there there is no consensus as to timeline or severity (the things Al Gore showed in an "inconvenient truth" are sort of like the Christmas pageants they put on in Churches, it is an amalgam of many stories, and it is probably more radical then reality). However, more then 90% of the scientists working in climatology have come to agree that the climate change is real, and that a large part of it is probably caused by man made activity. If anything, most models have been showing signs they are more conservative, given what we are seeing with weather. In the past 2 years, the northeast has seen 4 storms that are considered once in a century storms, the farm belt has a drought that has been going on for years, that is worse then the 1930's, England is seeing weird climate. The Northwest passage, that 30 years ago was impassible even in summer, is now melting enough that they are seriously thinking of opening it up to commercial shipping in the next decade. Deep ocean currents, that are not affected by el nino and so forth, are showing a temperature rise, which indicates that the atmospheric temperature has to be increasing steadily, otherwise it would not be affected....there have been climate shifts before, there have been periods of volcanic activity, 'flips' where greenland for 100 years had warmer temps, but none of them match what we see today (For the poster who mentioned volcanoes, if there is a period where a lot of volcanoes go off, they release CO2 into the air, creating the greenhouse effect; part of the reason the age of dinosaurs was so lush was CO2 levels were quite high, thanks to volcanic activity. Only problem is, volcanic activity is not at a peak, it is relatively low, so is unlikely to be the cause of CO2 levels. Another poster was correct, when a full scale explosion happens the volcanic dust does cause cooling, after Krakatoa blew and Mount Saint Helens, temps did drop, but once the mountain stops putting out ash, it is still putting out CO2...).
The thing about climate change is the pieces of it have been known a long time. For example, that CO2 causes a 'greenhouse effect' has been known a long, long time, and they even know the results from certain levels and how much heat is retained). Study of climate has been going on a long time, and they know from those long term studies that the average global temperature impacts the climate, that when volcanoes are pouring out CO2 the atmosphere heats up (and storms and such are more frequent), when they are quiet it cools; when the Sun pours out radiation, certain behaviors have happened. Climate change theory is based on putting together a lot of science that was already out there, so it isn't so revolutionary, what is revolutionary is that they are saying that man's hand is having a big role. The other thing that science has going for it is so called chaos theory, where small events can cause big change, it has been studied and worked out (the brilliant CGI landscapes you see in movies are based in it), and with it they can project what small changes can do.
Of course, the right wing is trying to do with climate change what they have tried to do with evolution (not surprising, it is a lot of the same people, the same people who deny climate change often also think evolution didn't happen),they point out, for example, that scientists don't agree on what actually is going to happen (not surprising), they point out where scientists don't agree (much as they point out the places in evolution where scientists don't agree to 'disprove' evolution). They argue it is a 'hypothesis, a guess' and then gleefully go to the dictionary and show the definitions of theory (leaving out, of course, the entry on scientific theory). When you have 90 % of the scientists working in the field saying it is a real thing, that they agree it is happening, that means something. Not to mention that many of the skeptics are of dubious worth; some of them are religious fundamentalists who find the idea that God would let the earth be harmed to be ludicrous; some of them are people working in fields not even related to climate, and a lot of the skeptics are well paid by people like the Koch Brothers and the Oil industry to throw doubt on climate change, for obvious reasons. Who do you believe, someone being paid 10's of millions by the Koch Brothers, whose whole livelyhood depends on oil and gas trading, someone being opposed by the likes of the Koch brothers? Lot more money to be made promoting the anti side. Taken to court, the law in Arizona or those promoting this as 'belief' or 'crackpot thinking' will have a hard time, when 90 some odd percent of working climate scientists agree it is happening and why, when there is tons of data out there indicating the climate is shifting, and rapidly, and observations that fit the general models.
All the skeptics have is what the anti evolutionists have, which is to try and poke holes in the theories, rather then offering something themselves. Every argument the skeptics have put out has been torn to shreds, that this is a natural cycle, that this is solar radiation, that this is somehow natural, no evidence can be found to support their claims. One of the biggest skeptics, ironically working for the Koch Brothers, published a study about a year and a half ago and basically said that looking at the evidence, studying it, that he could no longer with any conscience support the deniers, that climate change was real.
There are skeptics who concede it is real, but that all we can do is prepare for it, rather then try to change it, and they could be right. But most of the 'skeptics' turn out to be nothing more then either people looking to make a payout from the oil and gas interests, or those who refuse to accept it because of religious beliefs (want proof of my contention about skeptics? See the movie "Jesus Camp" where you see the evangelical minister teaching talking points against Global Warming/climate change). Basically what Arizona is doing is the same thing Texas tried to do with teaching logical analysis as a framework to learning, it is trying to bury the kids heads in the sand to reality, that with evolution their idiotic belief in a 6000 year old earth, unchanging, as in genesis is bupkus. Global climate change says that the smiling image of the hydrocarbon economy isn't so smiling.
|
|
|
|
