Papas Fritas writes:
Time Magazine reports that Wyoming, the nation's top coal-producing state, has become the first state to reject new K-12 science standards proposed by national education groups mainly because of global warming components. The Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) are a set of science standards developed by leading scientists and science educators from 26 states and built on a framework developed by the National Academy of Sciences. The Wyoming science standards revision committee made up entirely of Wyoming educators unanimously recommended adoption of these standards to the state Board of Education not once but twice and twelve states have already adopted the standards since they were released in April 2013. But opponents argue the standards incorrectly assert that man-made emissions are the main cause of global warming and shouldn't be taught in a state that ranks first among all states in coal production, fifth in natural gas production and eighth in crude oil production deriving much of its school funding from the energy industry. Amy Edmonds, of the Wyoming Liberty Group, says teaching "one view of what is not settled science about global warming" is just one of a number of problems with the standards. "I think Wyoming can do far better." Wyoming Governor Matt Mead has called federal efforts to curtail greenhouse emissions a "war on coal" and has said that he's skeptical about man-made climate change.
Supporters of the NGSS say science standards for Wyoming schools haven't been updated since 2003 and are six years overdue. "If you want the best science education for your children and grandchildren and you don't want any group to speak for you, then make yourselves heard loud and clear," says Cate Cabot. "Otherwise you will watch the best interests of Wyoming students get washed away in the hysteria of a small anti-science minority driven by a national right wing group "and political manipulation."
So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?I guess the theory is that if AGW were really a serious, urgent problem, the powers-that-be would be a little more interested in protecting their butts from the consequences of AGW. But instead, they're behaving like it's just another convenient feed trough.
So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?
I guess the theory is that if AGW were really a serious, urgent problem, the powers-that-be would be a little more interested in protecting their butts from the consequences of AGW. But instead, they're behaving like it's just another convenient feed trough.
I accept the scientists' claims that there are imminent serious problems with climate change, but "the powers-that-be" have always been known for their short-sightedness.
Plus they've got "useful idiots" covering their (the powers-that-be's) non-responsive backsides with citation-free allegations [soylentnews.org] that make it sound as if those useful idiots have done research... but failed to provide any cites:
The big problems remains. Climate proxy data from before the age of instrumentation remains unreliable and not up to the task of supporting the dire warnings of the catastrophe crowd and the data since is just too little to support the claims made. There are still huge, unacknowledged conflicts of interest among researchers and policy makers concerning this subject. Too much of the so-called debate is just blatant exercise of logic/statistics fallacies (particularly, the trio of confirmation bias, observation bias, and argument from authority). And in the small area where we can actually test predictions of the effects of climate change models, namely their effects on near future climate, they are coming up short.
So some armchair critic thinks he knows more than an entire field of scientists and proposes a "theory" which relies on those in power having wisdom and foresight, upon them not being corrupt or benefiting from the main sources of the problem...
Then gives denialist talking points, spouting off about logical fallacies...
And uses that house of logical cards to refute AGW in a giant circular logical fallacy.
So some armchair critic thinks he knows more than an entire field of scientists
This is argument from authority. And it is easily deflated by my previous noting that there was no one measuring temperature or other climate data more than roughly 150 years ago. There aren't actually any authorities for the period of time in question.
Estimates of temperature and other climate parameters from before the modern era are mated to the modern age via a narrow bridge of weather observations over that century and a half and correlations made over that narrow time period. Further, some temperature proxy data, particularly tree ring data, is truncated (the last half century of tree ring data is ignored on the still unverified theory that it was heavily tweaked by current human activity). That also means that tree ring data may be invalid in the past as a temperature proxy for the same reasons it is invalid today.
Also, this was a period of growing human industrialization. We don't actually have a valid pre-industrialization instrument-measured baseline with which to compare to modern climate. This all is fact not theory.
and proposes a "theory" which relies on those in power having wisdom and foresight
"Wisdom and foresight"? I wouldn't say that having the instinct to metaphorically stick one's head in a waiting feed trough requires much in the way of wisdom and foresight.
A fallacy which doesn't apply, let us note. The above problems that I noted are facts not assumptions which I then prove circularly. The latter condition is necessary in order for it to be circular reasoning.
with citation-free allegations [soylentnews.org]
with citation-free allegations [soylentnews.org]
Ok, so it's another ridiculous game of "let's play scientist". The first part of my rebuttal is the observation that my post is not in a vacuum. It is part of a comment thread and a clearly designated reply to another post [soylentnews.org] by mendax. Thus, it has a built-in default citation. The first paragraph of assertions which are all about the previous post is therefore cited by the post I replied to.
The second paragraph is common knowledge. The only different is the degree of confidence I assign to paleoclimate data versus the usual consensus.
The third paragraph expresses personal opinion and hence, is self-citing.
The i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. This game of "scientist" is over.