SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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."
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by Oligonicella on Friday May 16 2014, @04:06AM
He's not [breitbart.com] alone. The intolerance is rampant.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by edIII on Friday May 16 2014, @04:31AM
I just had a thought (don't worry, I'm fine)....
If the problem is that states are corrupted and hijacked to local business interests following the Kettering Plan (as I now like to call it), then why not bypass the states entirely?
Why not have a national educational system using online tools, open licenses on all content, and supported financially by parents, large non-profits, and corporations wanting to invest in the future?
The corps obviously have no say over the content available to students, since it's a collective effort of all teachers in the US, and strongly supported by academia.
We could have Bill Nye, and Neil deGrasse Tyson, and new unknown charismatic educators providing exciting examples, narration, actual demonstrations, etc. You want to learn about WWII? The finest historians would contribute to that and we could have Morgan Freeman walking us through the invasion at Normandy.
So many people talk about education as being the most important thing for our country period. How about we let them put up or shut up? I'm willing to bet you would easily get the participation of the Hollywood elite actors in such a system.
Eliminate the middlemen entirely and give the finger to the bureaucrats. Education can finally be free of all of their moronic value judgments and demands it align with religious and financial interests of those who can't see the end of the line coming up quick.
It may be difficult since the state controlled (read industry controlled) incumbents will not give up those tax dollars, but we are also eliminating huge costs. Children could study at home, meet up at libraries a few times a week, and have a few days a month where there are guest lecturers and hands on PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS where children can see how we use this knowledge on a day to day basis. Show our children directly how knowledge lets us pwn the stupid on a daily basis.
Just an idea of a silly dreamer...
Another thought.... why not have the whole world participate? One of the best ways to say fuck you to Boko Haram is give them cheap laptops connected to Internet with mesh networks allowing their young girls to learn in safety in very small groups. Mobile education available with a tiny device. Let the Muslim zealots try to push their anti-intellectual misogyny then.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 1) by calzone on Friday May 16 2014, @06:22AM
The logistics are more than I care to ponder atm, but superficially, at least, I love this idea. Would be awesome to flesh it out and make sure it could actually be pulled off (correctly and feasibly) somehow.
Time to leave Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @01:41PM
Why not have a national educational system using online tools, open licenses on all content, and supported financially by parents, large non-profits, and corporations wanting to invest in the future?
awwww that is sooooo cute. That way instead of having to corrupt thousands of districts you could do it in one fell swoop and indoctrinate everyone exactly the same way. You could have the gov pick winners and loosers.
Do not think for one second something of that scale would not be corrupt.
The closest you will come are the home school crowd (which is about what you described). They are basically willing to pay the taxes for their kids to go to school and choose to still do it themselves. I personally think they are crazy but can see where they are coming from. I live in a state that ranks near the bottom every year. Having met people who come out of said public system who can not even read and have a HS diploma. I can see why someone would say screw you I am doing it myself.
Show our children directly how knowledge lets us pwn the stupid on a daily basis
Not to be an ass, but this is how you use your knowledge? I like to use it this way. http://xkcd.com/1053/ [xkcd.com] Not to be a jerk or anything but if this is the way you treat people please be quiet from now on. You create division and make people distrustful of 'smart uns'. Dont hoard your knowledge and whip it out to make yourself 'look smart'. Use it to make the world better. Realize the difference between opinion and fact and show others why fact is better. Yes people are 'stupid' but whos fault is that? Theirs or yours for coming off all superior every time they ask something?
(Score: 2) by TK on Friday May 16 2014, @02:05PM
From my experience, there seems to be two camps when it comes to homeschooling:
Both groups probably qualify as "crazy", but only for the "does not think like the majority" definition of the word. /offtopic
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @04:18PM
Because it's so much better if your children grow inside a bubble. That will make them functional adults. A society full of isolated groups full of ignorance and fear about each other is such a great fucking thing, isn't it?
Instead of being selfish recluses, they could help change the education system they are so afraid of.
I can understand the former don't want to do it, because deep inside they hate Humanity. Nothing less than imposing the Christian Sharia on everyone would satisfy them, and they know it's impossible. So instead of changing themselves, they give up on Mankind and hide inside their safe little bubble, covering their ears and screaming "la la la".
But the latter could come down from their high tower and ask "do you need a hand?".
(Score: 2) by TK on Friday May 16 2014, @05:17PM
At the risk of opening a can of worms...
Change should be encouraged, but not at the sacrifice of what's best for your children. Why should anyone send their kids to a failing school when there are better alternatives available and within their means? Not attending the public school system does not preclude other forms of community involvement, including influencing the local, state and federal politics that dictate the administration of those schools.
There's also no rule that they must be insulated from the world around them. Extra-curricular sports exist, so do museums, libraries, parks, social clubs, and homeschooling collectives.
Granted, some homeschoolers are isolationists, but they do not represent everyone.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @05:47PM
I am sure they are plenty who would fit into the category of wanting to impose their version of sharia, much to their shame. On the other hand, I am sure there are quite a few who feel like they are voiceless and marginalized, so instead of trying to change the system, they have opted to do it themselves. That way they can sidestep all the nasty politics and name-calling and get on with the business of educating their own kids. I am not a global warming denier, by any stretch of the imagination, but frankly both sides seem to be engaging in political battles under the guise of "science education". Under these circumstances. if I were a parent I would be seriously considering voting with my feet too.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 16 2014, @06:32PM
I was not proposing home schooling, or depriving children of the ability to develop social skills.
My idea is online content accessible from their devices, which allows them the ability to learn anywhere. This gives them the flexibility to learn at home, parks, museums, libraries, food courts, or other gathering places.
What I am proposing is creating *real life* for children. That means year round schooling, since adults work the entire time too. Keep a shorter Summer break, and distribute the off time throughout the year. Just like adults, if they want to take 2 weeks off it's possible. Children will learn at their own pace and schedule while still being able to work with each other and meet specific deadlines, and that also sounds just like real life.
Half of the time they are at home (when possible), or just like carpooling, will proceed to a neighbors house or some local center to complete their work. Hell, they could do it at a park or a Starbucks. It's their responsibility to get the work done.
At least 1/4 of the time they can proceed to libraries and museums, where we are supporting those places to do so, to receive hands on demonstrations and participate in activities with teachers and other educators. This way teachers would be at the museums and libraries all day long and not subject to the control of draconian and backward school district officials. The children arrive in manageable groups throughout the month.
For the rest of the time, it would be larger groups participating in group projects that have 6-12 month deadlines, and more personalized testing with a teacher to verify proficiency in a given subject. Make them build and manage real technology that has immediate practical applications once passing K-12.
Children needing help with a subject they aren't grasping on their own can seek out each other, or online tutors in the system. I would gladly offer my time with a specific subject if it was online.
As for the social skills.... KICK THEIR ASSESS OUT OF THE HOUSE. This is what my parents did. A swift kick in the butt and I was outside playing with my friends. Children will socialize all by themselves if you give them a safe opportunity to do so. Quite frankly, that problem works itself out since I'm not trying to shelter the little precious children from life or ideas I find religiously offensive.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by edIII on Friday May 16 2014, @07:04PM
It's funny that you attack my character for doing exactly what you are doing now. I would suggest you learn about cognitive dissonance.
I said it was a beautiful dream didn't I? I also SAID it was a community driven FOSS project that was privatized. It's not subject to any government regulations, just as private schools today are not overly burdened by regulations hampering their teaching methods and content either.
You can let your cynicism provide you doubt, but don't be fooled into thinking it has any value in this debate other than worthless emotion.
No, it isn't. When I said "pwn" I was attempting levity and relevancy with the younger crowd.
You could say the "stupid" here are the anti-intellectuals who find no value in intelligence, but crude and prurient actions instead. There is going to be a percentage of children like this.
What I mean by "pwn" in that context is a general statement about life in general. I am MUCH better off then some jackass who refused to do anything in school and never made anything of himself simply because he refused to improve himself at all. As adults, we know this is true in a myriad of ways. So it has nothing to do with the exploitation of these people.
So it's not that I am better than the building maintenance staff, which you would rightly find offensive. What I am trying to teach the children is that with knowledge you are not waiting for others to fix your Ethernet connection, or change that light bulb. Knowledge makes you vastly more capable and adaptable to change, more so than those who would refuse knowledge.
Show kids how as adults we run circles around these anti-intellectual people all day long, and how these people really are nothing more than adult children that are a drain on society. I will specifically single out the anti-intellectual thug culture that spread throughout our youth. I would teach them how their knowledge allows them to escape the suffering guaranteed to be prevalent throughout a thugs entire life.
Of course it goes without saying to teach them that those with medical or genetic reasons for their lack of sophistication need to be taken care of and offered some kind of opportunity to contribute.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @07:42PM
the fact that you consider education to be "indoctrination" shows that you really can't be trusted to have any valid input on the subject.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @06:21AM
they're honest and saying "Don't teach that; it makes our bosses look bad" instead of claiming it's not true.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by SpockLogic on Friday May 16 2014, @11:47AM
FOLLOW THE MONEY. Its not a "war on coal", its a threat to the politicians funding. Money = re-election. Anything that threatens that must be eliminated.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @07:51PM
which is exactly why we need public campaign financing. this is a nation-wide problem, some places are just worse than others.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 16 2014, @03:22PM
Sounds like a good excuse for a lesson on the meaning of cognitive dissonance, pragmatism, and ecological responsibility.
"Because it makes the guys in charge look bad" hardly qualifies as a reason not to teach it from where I'm standing. But of course those in power don't actually WANT educated peons because then they'll start asking pesky questions.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 3, Informative) by mendax on Friday May 16 2014, @06:30AM
From the posting:
Skeptical? CO2 is a greenhouse gas, humanity has pumped vast quantities into the atmosphere, it can be proved scientifically how CO2 affects the atmosphere's capability to retain heat, and it has been proven that the planet's average temperature has risen significantly. What more does he need? A wall chart to hang in his office? Perhaps someone should take away his crayons and blunt-nose scissors and put him in the room with the grown-ups.
This guy is a human ostrich who's putting his head in the sand. I'd like to put his head into some Alberta tar sands and hold it there for a few years.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:33AM
Note what you actually said. First, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas in an oversimplified model that isn't actually the Earth with atmosphere and weather. Second, what is a "vast quantity"? You use an unscientific term which is highly subjective and not all that relevant to the actual argument. Third, you have expressed your opinion that the Earth's temperature has risen significantly over some undefined time frame. Significance is yet another thing in the eye of the beholder. There is a measurable warming in the industrial age, but no one has actually shown that it would cause harm which is my standard for significance.
I doubt there is a state in the US that has less reason to care about your opinion than Wyoming does. Even if there is substantial global warming, Wyoming has little reason to be concerned. Their lowest elevation is well above sea level and about the only two real problems would be the alleged drying of the US continental interior - which includes Wyoming, and the shortening or even ending of the snow season in the state. That's not much reason to care especially given that the stakes here are the destruction of two major Wyoming industries, coal mining and petroleum extraction, and the indoctrination of its youth by ideologies which don't care about Wyoming even a little.
Either present a case with rock-solid evidence for action against global warming and related issues or accept that you're just not going to get the action on global warming that you desire.
If your ideology requires willing scapegoats, then your ideology is destined to fail.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday May 16 2014, @10:16AM
Yes, there are: It's a toss-up between Texas and South Carolina in the competition for state-wide idiocy and imbecility among government officials and the majority of the electorate.
But to comment more broadly on your remarks, I ought to have just said that climate change and its human-caused component is an established scientific fact and not try to describe why. Doing any real research is not a good thing to do when a body is tired and can't sleep.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @11:20AM
Which would be deceptive for several reasons. First, which human-caused climate changes are you referring to when you say that phrase? Second, so what if there is climate change with a human-caused component? You still haven't said anything scientifically valid about the extent or degree of harm of that climate change. Third, describing why is an inherent part of the scientific process. If you just assert without evidence - a way too common occurrence in this debate - then what's the point of it?
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.
My personal take is that in the absence of new evidence, the climate change debate is already lost for the present in favor of the status quo. The proponents of the theory had plenty of opportunity and plenty of resources given to make their case and they failed to. All the major CO2 emitting societies just aren't going to change their ways based on the shoddy case that has been put forth.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by caffeinated bacon on Friday May 16 2014, @12:51PM
Lucky they have an unbiased account from Wyoming to set them straight.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday May 16 2014, @05:48PM
Well, the case isn't all that shoddy. It has always seemed conclusive to me. But you're probably right about the debate having been already lost. Of course, attitudes *WILL* change once New York has to be evacuated and a flood gate replaces San Francisco's Golden Gate. But it will be far too late to do anything except piss on the graves of the arch-deniers.
Personally, years ago I concluded that nothing would ever change until it was too late and that it was probably too late to do anything anyway and so I stopped feeling guilty about burning gasoline in my vehicles and driving just because I find it relaxing.
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @06:46PM
Over how many centuries? One of the many great pretenses of this area is the idea that movement of cities over the time frame of centuries is going to be expensive. But the thing is, humanity already, in the complete absence of any significant AGW effect moves extremely often and almost nothing man-made lasts that long. For example, back around the turn of the millennium, movement of people in the US was so great that effectively the entire population of the US was moved every six years. It's slowed down a little [census.gov] since to about nine years.
And while I don't have a building replacement rate, I gather most buildings get replaced within 50 years. So let's consider New York City getting gradually flooded out in two centuries. An interesting effect seamlessly happens. Real estate that is in increased danger of flooding drops in value and is eventually abandoned as it becomes too expensive to maintain. Meanwhile real estate further uphill becomes the new hot spots. Over two centuries, the city gradual builds away from the increasing shoreline (or dumps soil and rock to increase local height) without a noticeable cost. Areas that have become flood prone now have lower value real estate (where it doesn't matter as much, if the real estate project gets flooded or washed away) or even are turned into green space buffers.
So some areas become less valuable and some areas become more valuable. The overall value of real estate doesn't change. The most claimed effect of AGW, the loss of real estate, does happen, but the real estate when it is finally lost is almost valueless. Meanwhile, real estate less susceptible to sea level rise increases in value. In this scenario, there is no significant net cost to the sea level rise of global warming as a result. The city remains in more or less the same spot it was in.
This leads to one of my predictions in this area. Namely, that for most of the world, we will not actually be significantly inconvenienced by the effects of global warming. That's because our societies are so fluid that they would readily adjust to the effects of global warming in real time.
(Score: 2) by mendax on Friday May 16 2014, @09:39PM
I hope that you don't eat or that you don't live in California or that you don't live too close to a coastline. The computer models predict a much drier western US, including California. The last two years of drought we've had I suspect are just the beginning of that predicted drier trend. Glaciers worldwide (although not everywhere for some reason) are melting at an alarming rate, raising sea level. If you own beach-front property, I'd dump it and move to a bit higher ground. And humanity is very close to reaching its maximum ability to produce enough food for everyone. More severe droughts and more severe storms are not going to make producing food any easier.
With regard to New York, there are things they could do although it would be extremely expensive. It's fairly common knowledge that downtown Sacramento is on higher ground than it was originally. Because of its proximity to the Sacramento and American Rivers and the devastating floods it suffered, the city fathers made a decision to raise the street levels by about 3 meters. Existing buildings were not raised. Instead, the ground floors became basements. When Galveston, Texas was pretty much obliterated by a hurricane about 100 years ago, the decision was made to rebuild but the entire island the city was built on was raised. Both of these cities were small and labor was cheap then. Today it is a very different matter and raising Manhattan island, let alone the other New York boroughs would be prohibitive (unless, of course, the Feds wanted to finance it).
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Wednesday June 04 2014, @02:18PM
I know this comment is quite late (I've been away from the internet for three weeks), but no, the models don't predict a much drier western US - some do and some predict a much milder drying (plus there's the matter of just how much temperature increase we'll actually get - that seems to be consistently over-estimated by current models). And we would expect droughts in the western US (and elsewhere) because they happen whether or not there is global warming - especially when human incompetence is involved.
"Prohibitive" means the cost is large enough to prohibit the proposed course of action. Given that this raising would be over the course of centuries (and moving dirt is dirt cheap and likely to stay that way), I don't see what is supposed to be prohibitive about it. Nor are we talking of that much land area or that intrusive a project. For example, you could fill in when a building is torn down.
And it's worth remembering that the Fresh Kills landfill, the landfill run by New York for about 60 years, took in enough volume of trash over that time frame that it would raise all of Manhattan Island by more than a meter if spread out over the island. They didn't need federal funding for that massive movement of materials.
(Score: 1) by Buck Feta on Friday May 16 2014, @03:57PM
Wyoming produces about 40% of US coal. Follow the money from there.
- fractious political commentary goes here -
(Score: 2) by hash14 on Friday May 16 2014, @07:14AM
Amy Edmonds, of the Wyoming Liberty Group, says teaching "one view of what is not settled science about global warming"
Try defending that in front of a panel of people who actually understand the science. You wouldn't last 10 seconds.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @08:23AM
I don't have a problem with the AGW part, its the anti-AGW rock being sold that I personally have a problem with. you look at the ONLY plans being looked at such as cap and trade [nakedcapitalism.com] and carbon credits [youtube.com] and you'll see its a TOTAL SCAM, with "indulgences" for the worst polluters and ZERO penalties for simply moving factories offshore, its no wonder that Rev Al Gore is pushing it, since it'll make him a billionaire several times over [thenewamerican.com]. Notice rev Al has NEVER said we should penalize China, who is dumping so much in the air we can detect it on the west coast? Wanna know why? because that is where they are sending the factories, you silly peasant lulz!
So I must be in the so called "deniers" which frankly just the fact that such a name exists ought to show you the propaganda at work pushing AGW, because I refuse to support a position whose sole and ONLY answer is "give some rich people trillions more and if you are REALLY lucky and click your heels three times they MIGHT do something about it". because we have seen where that road lies, its trickle upon and voodoo economics all over again only slapping a shiny coat of "ZOMFG we've got to DO something! Quick give that rich guy all your money!" layer of bullshit and snake oil on top, and I'm not buying and neither should you.
You wanna put strict limits to emissions AND put up tariffs so that the corps won't just move the pollution overseas? I'm right there with ya, support ya 100%, but I'm not giving my money away for some magic beans made of bullshit.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @11:23AM
So, because cap & trade and carbon credits are scams (which I agree) makes the AGW problem a non-existing one?
That's like saying a house is not burning because the fire-fighters are drunk.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @11:50AM
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.
(Score: 2, Funny) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @12:04PM
You think that's a strange behaviour? Where have you been in the latest 5.000 years?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday May 16 2014, @03:30PM
It evidently takes the equivalent of a dirty hobo punching a politician in the face repeatedly to make them actually care about something--regardless of how pressing an issue it seems. Global warming is Somebody Else's Problem. Let the dirty Indians who live on the coast deal with that while I go to my Wyoming ski chalet. Just turn up the fake snow blowers a couple notches, Jeeves.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:52PM
So why don't they have concern about dirty hobo punching? If AGW is as bad as some are claiming, then they should be pretty worried about getting caught out in riots and such.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:57PM
Why do you think they're so dead-set on creating a Police and Surveillance State?
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @08:39PM
Good point. I'll have to think about that.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Maow on Friday May 16 2014, @06:11PM
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:
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.
Ooookaaaayyy then.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:18PM
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.
"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.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:35PM
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @07:55PM
Welcome to Capitalism. I take it you're new here?
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @04:22PM
No its the simple refusing of being lied to and ripped off. If I told you "rape is a serious problem therefor every person in the USA should send me a thousand dollars a year for my "anti-rape panties" and if they don't hand it willingly the government will take it from you, because rape is a serious problem" you'd demand I provide proof my panties actually worked or fuck off, yes? So WHY IN THE FUCK are you willing to hand at LEAST that much money to several banksters who give you ZERO evidence that what they are proposing will do anything but send the pollution (and the factories and jobs that go with it) overseas to their increased profit?
Again if you want to do something REAL about the problem, like strict limits to pollution AND tariffs and penalties to overseas polluters so that it doesn't simply move the pollution across the border or around the world? I'm with you 110%, all for it, we can actually work on stopping and reversing AGW tomorrow. but do NOT be trying to tell me I should be paying a grand a year for anti-AGW panties while staring down the barrel of a federal gun while the ones actually polluting are handed indulgences and cash the checks, and you are frankly a fool if you line up to buy some anti-AGW panties under the "we have to DO something ZOMFG!" line of alarmist bullshit being pushed by those cashing the checks.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @04:33PM
Be slower on the trigger and read what I wrote. Pay more attention this time.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @07:37PM
I read EXACTLY what you wrote, you wrote basically an "us vs them" screed with you on the side of AGW panties. Sorry, don't intend to buy your panties, not interested. We only have TWO camps, not three, not eight, two. Either you are FOR AGW panties or you are not, which puts you in the "deniers" camp since those in charge of the AGW camp are the ones selling the panties...now which is it?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @08:07PM
i'm going to ignore this whole "panty" analogy because it doesnt make much sense, but i do want to try to understand your argument.
are you saying that some of the AGW 'deniers'* actually agree that humans are having a negative impact (from human perspective) on the climate, and that their real issue is the proposed "solutions", such as cap-and-trade and carbon credits, which i agree are a scam?
if so, then they shouldnt be against AGW and in the camp of 'deniers', instead they should be calling out the proposed scam 'solutions'. if my understanding is correct, those 'deniers' are doing everyone a disservice by agreeing that the "problem" doesnt exist simply because they dont like the "solution"; they instead need to make it clear that they agree that "problem" is real but that the "solution" is a scam.
i agree with the GP's analogy, or something close to it - its like saying the house isnt on fire because the firemen on the scene arent actually interested in putting out the fire.
* dont get caught up on that word - its not meant to be offensive, just trying to lump everyone who claims that AGW doesnt exist/isnt a problem in to one group
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @09:30PM
Nooo...I'll try to explain this VERY simply, since you seem to be having trouble grasping how the thing works...now there are TWO camps, you have the AGW camp which has been hijacked by Al Gore and Goldman Sachs for quite awhile now, no different than how the tea Party got hijacked by the Koch bros "tea party express" so if you say you are for AGW? then your local congress critter will go "Oh he is for cap and trade and carbon credits, here is your AGW panties, do I make out your check to Gore or GS?" then there are the "skeptics" "deniers" whatever you want to call it that aren't really FOR anything so much as AGAINST the AGW panty camp. Now some don't believe AGW exists, some like me believe that AGW panties are snake oil, some believe that there are better ways to handle AGW, all they have in common is they see the three card monty being pushed by AGW express.
So either you are FOR AGW panties or you are AGAINST it, which is it? You can't say there is a third choice, not unless you have the money required to start a lobby group with equal or greater money than AGW express, just as you can't be for SOME of the tea party platform because its owned by Koch bros and TPE. So you really only have A or B, there is NO C because no lobbying group is pushing C so if you stand for AGW you WILL end up with AGW panties...so do ya want 'em or not?
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 16 2014, @10:16PM
why do you keep referencing panties? what do they have to do with anything? and why are you insisting that accepting the science behind AGW automatically means you're wanting carbon credits and cap-and-trade? because i have never seen that come up anywhere, except from you, just now.
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Friday May 16 2014, @11:17PM
Would you prefer magic rocks? Snake oils? choose your poison. i personaly use panties because its about as ridiculous as the whole crap and trade/carbon indulgences three card monty, its all snake oil that will do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT AGW, unless you call making a handful of rich old white guys even richer "doing something".
And I really don't give a rat's ass if you believe in AGW, flat earth, whatever because at the end of the day all it comes down to is WHAT YOU SUPPORT. Now if you vote FOR those that are in favor of "stopping AGW" you WILL be supporting cap and trade, carbon indulgences, the whole nine yards because THAT IS WHAT THE PLATFORM IS NOW as its been hijacked by AGW Express. Same as you can't vote FOR having sensible border regulations or stopping taxing the lower middle class because THAT platform has been hijacked by Tea party Express and Koch bros so if you vote for THAT platform you'll be voting FOR tax cuts for the 1%, offshoring, H1-Bs, the whole mess.
So believe what you want, your beliefs affect me not one bit, but you better damned well make sure you support the entire platform of AGW Express because if you simply vote for the guy that says "we have to do something about AGW!" you can bet your soon to be taken last dollar you WILL be buying the snake oil, magic beans, whatever you prefer to call getting your wallet raped by the 1% running AGW Express.
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday May 16 2014, @03:26PM
Umm...because we have no jurisdiction over there? I suppose we could try blockading or censuring or whatever the hell it is we're currently doing to Russia to them, but I'm sure China wouldn't take offense at that and turn off all our GPS receivers or something worse.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by Hairyfeet on Saturday May 17 2014, @06:01AM
The word you are looking for is "tariff" something they have done to American products for over 30 years but dumb fuck Americans keep getting fed that "free trade" horseshit and are sadly too ill informed to know THEY ARE BEING SCAMMED! these corps will say "Oh they are buying levi's and Coke" and you know where those Levis and Cokes came from? China, because they won't let American products in lulz!
So not only would real tariffs actually help stop AGW by keeping polluters from simply skipping over to China to avoid our regulations but as a bonus we might actually have some jobs here! Wouldn't that be nice? but instead you'll be fed bullshit about free trade when if you look at what is really going on? they allow THEIR products to come here but do NOT allow your products to go THERE. hell they won't even allow American movies, did you know that? The reason we are getting those shitty 3D conversions is because China ONLY allows 35 American movies PER YEAR and 20 of those slots are for 3D movies...wow, isn't free trade great? the Chinese leadership sure as fuck does, they are making out like bandits, raising their quality of living, and fucking dumbass capitalist America which pleases the old guard! Its a win/win!
ACs are never seen so don't bother. Always ready to show SJWs for the racists they are.
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Friday May 16 2014, @07:16AM
Nothing good has ever come out of Wyoming, well, except to being the first state to endorse a woman's right to vote. But other than that, it has been a hell hole of far right corporatist shills and carpetbaggers, in hock to the energy companies in a way that no other respecting Western state could be! And then they give us James Watt, Secretary of Destroying the Interior, Richard "Dick" Dick Cheney Vader, and even more lately. Wyoming is populated with people too stupid to leave, and I are related to some of them.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @08:17AM
When I read posts like the above, I am sadly reminded that there actually are people out there dumber than people from Wyoming.
(Score: 1) by e_armadillo on Friday May 16 2014, @05:28PM
Well, if you definition of good only encompasses politicians. I happen to be from Wyoming, and I like to think that I contribute some good to this world. Before you address the fact that "I are" from Wyoming, I am an Electrical Engineer working for a global Electronics Design Automation company that supplies and supports all of the big semiconductor manufacturers with design tools and IP that have helped create all your shiny gadgets. I have many family members that have spread out across the globe doing good things for the world from China to south America. Trying to say that we are all a bunch of ignorant, worthless, idiots because of a handful of stupid-corrupt politicians is displaying ignorance of another kind. I vehemently disagree with these politicians, as do all of the teachers that are lobbying to adopt these new standards -- guess where a large number of those teachers come from . . .
Too stupid to leave? Why would any self respecting out doors enthusiast leave Jackson? When Yellowstone is right at your doorstep and you can go watch tourists get trampled by bison? When you have skiing, snow machining, and snow boarding in the winter, fly fishing, mountain biking, camping and hiking in the summer. Vedauwoo is beautiful in the summer, the eastern plains have a quiet beauty of their own. Yeah, you'd have to be a complete moron to stay put . . .
I am proud to be from Wyoming, and am proud of my family and friends that are still there. Please don't judge all of us on the ignorance of a small few with power.
"How are we gonna get out of here?" ... "We'll dig our way out!" ... "No, no, dig UP stupid!"
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday May 16 2014, @07:56AM
Decades ago, Groucho Marx asked "Why NOT oming?". Finally we have an answer!
(Score: 2) by Geezer on Friday May 16 2014, @11:16AM
The only way to stop stupid and/or corrupt interference by coal state politicians at all levels is to make the issue moot and cripple their financing by eliminating the demand for coal. The EPA has been accused before of a "war on coal", so why not throw down and get real about it? Make regs on coal plants so tight that gas, nuke, wind, and solar become economically sounder choices. Higher prices? Sheesh, it's not like the power gods aren't going to keep raising rates anyway, regardless. Might as well get some environmental benefit for the buck.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @11:53AM
Because they aren't going to stop with just a "war on coal".
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 16 2014, @12:57PM
Wow you can predict the future, but not see the climate changing before your very eyes?
Where is your peer reviewed study from an unbiased source etc etc.
Dumb hypocrite.
(Score: 2) by khallow on Friday May 16 2014, @07:49PM
The problem rather is that I can see the climate changing before my own eyes and the parts which are changing fast, just aren't due to AGW - like the Syrian drought. By that last statement, I mean that there's an obvious explanation for the big current day climate changes, like human incompetence or natural variation of climate and weather, which doesn't require any contribution from AGW in order to achieve the observed severity of the event. And the parts which can be reasonably tied to global warming such as modest sea level rise or modest warming in the upper northern hemisphere, just aren't that significant.
There is no such thing as an unbiased source.
(Score: 1) by meisterister on Saturday May 17 2014, @05:58PM
Have you ever considered that some people see it happening but believe that we're already too far gone? Might as well live as nicely as possible while we can.
(May or may not have been) Posted from my K6-2, Athlon XP, or Pentium I/II/III.
(Score: 2, Informative) by gidds on Friday May 16 2014, @12:53PM
Surely that's the place it most needs to be taught!
No point 'preaching to the converted'...
[sig redacted]
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 16 2014, @03:05PM
Are quite interesting because it signals they are aware how close we are to the tipping point with renewable energy. The price per watt of solar has been plummeting the last 10 years and in some places are approaching grid parity. One source [cleantechnica.com] I've seen priced out how much people in various states would save over 20 years if they switched over to solar now. That means that utilities are about to see a massive reversal in their traditional business model, whereby the thing which made them a natural monopoly, their infrastructure, will transform into an albatross around their necks. It costs a lot of money to keep the power infrastructure up, and they spend as little money as possible on it. When enough customers unplug it means the grid will quickly suck away all the power companies' profits. Big Oil isn't as threatened by this yet because they figure people will be driving ICEs for a long time yet. But they too should see the writing on the wall as more and more major car companies add EVs to their lineups. I know that as soon as Tesla offers its mass-market model or Honda comes out with an EV version of what I drive now (with decent range, that is), I will jump.
But Big Coal is feeling the pinch now, especially in big markets like California. New York, too, is making a lot of progress, especially with wind power. So we'll be seeing more stories like this in the next few years.
It is too little, too late, though. Blocking discussion of Global Warming in Wyoming textbooks is not going to delay the end of fossil fuel companies. It may accelerate it, in an energy version of the Streisand Effect. The more Big Coal/Oil/Gas companies fight renewables and climate change, the more people think about renewables and climate change and the more of those will ask themselves, why not switch to renewables?
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by hoochiecoochieman on Friday May 16 2014, @04:47PM
Don't worry, they will just lobby the politicians to subsidise coal "to save jobs!". And push to illegalise solar panels or tax them to hell based on some stupid thing like "they look ugly on roofs" or "they project shade on the ground below them, tax the shade".
(Score: 2) by emg on Friday May 16 2014, @05:25PM
Wow. I remember when coal miners were left-wing Heroes Of The Glorious Revolution. When did they get tossed under the bus?
(Score: 1) by Fnord666 on Friday May 16 2014, @03:35PM
Let's face it. The next Albert Einstein / Carl Sagan / etc. is not going to come out of Wyoming anyway. Just build a fence around it, add a roof, and move on.