Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

Textbooks to Push Climate Change in New Curriculum


  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 April 2013 - 01:34 PM

New science standards have America’s educational publishers turning the page

Read more: http://www.foxnews.c.../#ixzz2QFvL8Hrx

 

 

The release of proposed new national science standards, including the emphasis of manmade climate change, will alter the classroom landscape for millions of students in the United States, as well as for at least one education publisher readying for the “major” undertaking.

 

The Next Generation Science Standards, which were released Tuesday after development by 26 states and several national scientific organizations, recommend that educators for the first time identify climate change as a core concept and stress the relationship between that change and human activity.

 

“Human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming),” according to the elementary school standards, which are not federally mandated and will be adopted on a state-by-state basis.


 

The process to implement the new guidelines — the first time in nearly 15 years to change the science K-12 education nationwide — could take years in some cases, but some of the nation’s major education publishers have already taken notice.
 
Kelly McGrath, a science editor at Pearson, one of the so-called “big three” education publishers alongside McGraw-Hill Education and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, said its materials will need revision to “reflect the depth of coverage” in the new guidelines.
 
“With the implementation of the Next Generation Science Standards, we will need to revise our coverage of climate change and many other science core ideas, to reflect the depth of coverage in the new standards and the shift to focus on scientific practices,” McGrath wrote in an email to FoxNews.com. “In a digital learning environment, we’ll have greater capacity to deliver materials that meet the news standards, and teachers and students will benefit from the personalization capabilities that digital provides.”
 
For example, one of the new middle school science standards recommends that teacher ask questions to “clarify evidence” of the factors that have caused the rise in global temperatures throughout the past century.
 
“In order for students to demonstrate their understanding of this performance expectation, we will need to incorporate new experiences into our curriculum materials,” McGrath’s email continued. “Our materials will need to provide access to multiple examples of the evidence, as well as give students and teacher the support to know how to ask clarifying questions about this topic.”
 
Teachers will also need support to determine what successful demonstration of that expectation might look like, McGrath said.
 
“This is a major undertaking, but one that should result in students with greater ability to reason critically in an increasingly complex world,” McGrath’s email concluded.
 
Officials at McGraw-Hill Education, meanwhile, told FoxNews.com the company will wait to see which states adopt the guidelines before revising their materials.
 
“At McGraw-Hill Education, we work closely with educators to develop products that meet the needs of our customers,” vice president of product marketing Lisa O’Masta wrote in an email. “One common need of our customers is for materials that align to state or national education standards. Our current science offerings for the K-12 market are tightly aligned to address the existing National Science Education Standards and individual state standards. In the weeks and months ahead, we will be paying close attention to the adoption of the Next Generation Science Standards by states across the country. Our development of new products will focus on a deep alignment to the standards that states choose to adopt.”
 
At Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, materials are currently being reviewed for "alignment" with the new standards, according to Leigh Ann Garcia, HMH's director of product management and strategy for grades 6-12 in math and K-12 in science.
 
“We are currently reviewing HMH programs for their alignment with NGSS and will make the necessary revisions to support NGSS implementation," Garcia wrote FoxNews.com.
 
The new guidelines, which are based on a framework by the National Research Council, were released at a critical juncture, as jobs in science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) are expected to grow by 17 percent from 2008 to 2018, compared to just 9.8 percent for non-STEM jobs. Despite those figures, only 8 percent of college graduates enter the workforce with a STEM degree, according to the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation.
 
Frank Niepold, climate education coordinator for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Program Office, said the key underlying effort behind the new guidelines is to make students “really deeply understand” key topics like climate change, physical science and biological evolution rather than mere memorization.
 
“We’re really not getting mastery, that’s the fundamental drive here,” Niepold told FoxNews.com. “And the reality is that this a very positive improvement to the standards, there’s no way around that It’s a very sizeable improvement.”
 
Asked about potential blowback to standards regarding climate change, Niepold said there was nothing in the 93-page document that wasn’t “well-established” by science. Others, however, said the very presence of climate change instruction in classrooms will create controversy.
 
Neal McCluskey, associate director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, said climate change is undeniably a “very hard” topic to handle delicately.
 
“It’s something that’s very hard to strike a balance on,” McCluskey told FoxNews.com. “There’s nothing wrong with talking about climate change in science classrooms, but this opens up the huge possibility that interpretations of climate change or analysis that a lot of people disagree with will still be taught. The degree to which human beings are impacting the climate and how bad that impact may be is controversial.”
 
Some state Department of Education offices, including those in Pennsylvania and Florida, told FoxNews.com that no meetings have been scheduled in connection to the new standards. In California, the state Board of Education is expected to vote on them in December. In Kansas, it’s believed they’ll be voted upon as early as this summer and educators in Colorado will conduct a “thoughtful and sequenced” review of them following the adoption of new science standards there in 2009. Texas, meanwhile, has indicated they will not adopt the guidelines.
 
Regardless of if and when they’re adopted, Richard Hull, executive director of the Text and Academic Authors Association, said he welcomed the new guidelines and downplayed the potential impact of politically-divisive topics like climate change and evolution.
 
“The influence of political and religious views on evaluators and adopters in state education departments should be minimized by these new standards.,” Hull wrote FoxNews.com. “Students who are educated in accordance with them will have a far better chance for success in college courses and in competition on the employment market than those steeped in creationism design, new earth theory, and other alternative accounts.”
 


#2 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,106 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 02:54 PM

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

Out of 13,950 scientific papers published between January 1991

and November 2012, he found 24  (0.17%, or 1 in 581)  that clearly

reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for

observed warming. 



#3 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,769 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:03 PM

mighty cold here today



#4 Julius

Julius
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,160 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:04 PM

This is my old industry and I'll tell you something. The publishers have ZERO influence on what to teach. It's all dictated by the states and to some extent by the national associations for each subject area. 



#5 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:09 PM

This is my old industry and I'll tell you something. The publishers have ZERO influence on what to teach. It's all dictated by the states and to some extent by the national associations for each subject area. 

 

 

So this is mearly peer pressure?



#6 Tim the Beek

Tim the Beek
  • VibeTribe
  • 17,588 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:24 PM

So this is mearly peer-reviewed pressure?

 

ftfy



#7 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:25 PM

Suite. Goebbel's Warming will  be taught as State sponsored curriculum. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. The hoax has already run itself through the gambit. Relying on computer model data interpretations that negates important variables. Making the data fit the desired outcome.

 

http://www.theaustra...6-1226609140980

 

Research by Ed Hawkins of University of Reading shows surface temperatures since 2005 are already at the low end of the range projections derived from 20 climate models and if they remain flat, they will fall outside the models' range within a few years.

"The global temperature standstill shows that climate models are diverging from observations," says David Whitehouse of the Global Warming Policy Foundation.

"If we have not passed it already, we are on the threshold of global observations becoming incompatible with the consensus theory of climate change," he says.
According to The Economist, "given the hiatus in warming and all the new evidence, a small reduction in estimates of climate sensitivity would seem to be justified." On face value, Hansen agrees the slowdown in global temperature rises can be seen as "good news".
 

 

http://www.ncrs.fs.f...oodbury_001.pdf



#8 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:28 PM

pie-chart-climate.png.492x0_q85_crop-sma

 

Out of 13,950 scientific papers published between January 1991

and November 2012, he found 24  (0.17%, or 1 in 581)  that clearly

reject global warming or endorse a cause other than CO2 emissions for

observed warming. 

 

 

Awesome info-graph! these are my favorite pieces of Goebbel's propaganda.



#9 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,789 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:29 PM

:lol: Because your one article from Hansen disproves all of the other scientific consensus :rolling:



#10 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,769 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:31 PM

because people with and agenda, push their agenda



#11 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:34 PM

I could go on for days. it's just not worth it. If you believe in it, then there isn't much else to say. Teach it up. Watch the models be incorrect some more, as more important variables come to be popular (such as the suns impact and why it is not in the vacuums of computer modeling) . It's not an argument I care enough about to bother with.

 

It's all about belief. Concensus doesn't mean anything in science.



#12 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:38 PM

I could go on for days. it's just not worth it. If you believe in it, then there isn't much else to say. Teach it up. Watch the models be incorrect some more, as more important variables come to be popular (such as the suns impact and why it is not in the vacuums of computer modeling) . It's not an argument I care enough about to bother with.

 

It's all about belief. Concensus doesn't mean anything in science.

 

can you give the highlights?

 

You already know my opinion on this subject from the "global warming or cyclces of the sun" thread.

 

I believe there is def some effect by man, but I feel that the earth is just a touch closer in it's eleiptical orbit, and every 100K years the earth is a little closer to the sun.  And from data collected by ice in the artics shows that there have been swings from hot to cold like this quite often in earths history.

 

But lets use 50 years of data to define patterns in weather from say ... , lets go with the last couple hundred thousand years, or may be the last billion years.



#13 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 03:43 PM

It's a lot of work to highlight. I'm basically onboard with you. The sun and the earth's orbital position, along with seom other factors are contributing to climate change. As they have in the past and will again in the future. Temperature models, ice melting models, sea level rise analysis, etc are all showing that the there is a shift away from predictions of the alarmist crowd.

 

That's why it's the constant backpedal and everything that happens in weather and climate is from AWG.

 

Cold out? AWG

Warm? AWG

Storm? AWG

 

NOAA scientists are 97% sure of it. :rolling:



#14 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,106 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:21 PM

Suite. Goebbel's Warming will  be taught as State sponsored curriculum. Frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. The hoax has already run itself through the gambit. Relying on 


This crap that people do of using a slanderous label of the other sides view is disgusting.
Debate or don't but what the hell good does this "Goebbel's Warming" shit do?



#15 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:50 PM

It does about as much good as the debate itself. People who follow this science have made up their mind. I could throw hundreds of articles/published works of information that slams the CO2 AWG theory into the ground. But it's not going to change anything. It's not about science anymore, it's about belief.

 

Just like seany in the above. I post an article showing that once fringe side of the scientific debate is now mainstream and accepted by some of the biggest names in AWG alarmist community (Hansen). That a 20 year "hiatus" in temperature increases has been happening, while carbon emissions have sky rocketed. Showing, at least in part, a correlation between CO2 emission and temperature increases isn't there. Hansen says "well, it's a good thing." Then goes on a tirade about coal use and other "masks" of the evidence to perpetuate his failed models.

 

So what was the reply? To laugh and say "so this one article negates scientific concensus?" (meanwhile it is the alarmist side that admits 20 years worth of no temp increases with massive increases in CO2 emissions. For fun, and Im sure it went completely over looked, I added a paper published regarding  carbon sinks...a good read that shows our foests are doing their job quite effectively)

 

It's a joke. The whole debate is a joke. I'm just playing my part.



#16 MeOmYo

MeOmYo
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,769 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:54 PM

NSFW

 

This is how these things end up

 



#17 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:55 PM

It does about as much good as the debate itself. People who follow this science have made up their mind. I could throw hundreds of articles/published works of information that slams the CO2 AWG theory into the ground. But it's not going to change anything. It's not about science anymore, it's about belief.

 

Just like seany in the above. I post an article showing that once fringe side of the scientific debate is now mainstream and accepted by some of the biggest names in AWG alarmist community (Hansen). That a 20 year "hiatus" in temperature increases has been happening, while carbon emissions have sky rocketed. Showing, at least in part, a correlation between CO2 emission and temperature increases isn't there. Hansen says "well, it's a good thing." Then goes on a tirade about coal use and other "masks" of the evidence to perpetuate his failed models.

 

So what was the reply? To laugh and say "so this one article negates scientific concensus?" (meanwhile it is the alarmist side that admits 20 years worth of no temp increases with massive increases in CO2 emissions. For fun, and Im sure it went completely over looked, I added a paper published regarding  carbon sinks...a good read that shows our foests are doing their job quite effectively)

 

It's a joke. The whole debate is a joke. I'm just playing my part.

 

Im suspicious of anything new 



#18 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 07:59 PM

I'm suspicious of anything knew.



#19 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:04 PM

It does about as much good as the debate itself. People who follow this science have made up their mind. I could throw hundreds of articles/published works of information that slams the CO2 AWG theory into the ground. But it's not going to change anything. It's not about science anymore, it's about belief.

 

Just like seany in the above. I post an article showing that once fringe side of the scientific debate is now mainstream and accepted by some of the biggest names in AWG alarmist community (Hansen). That a 20 year "hiatus" in temperature increases has been happening, while carbon emissions have sky rocketed. Showing, at least in part, a correlation between CO2 emission and temperature increases isn't there. Hansen says "well, it's a good thing." Then goes on a tirade about coal use and other "masks" of the evidence to perpetuate his failed models.

 

So what was the reply? To laugh and say "so this one article negates scientific concensus?" (meanwhile it is the alarmist side that admits 20 years worth of no temp increases with massive increases in CO2 emissions. For fun, and Im sure it went completely over looked, I added a paper published regarding  carbon sinks...a good read that shows our foests are doing their job quite effectively)

 

It's a joke. The whole debate is a joke. I'm just playing my part.

 

 

Which is the point of this article.

 

States will be peer-reviewed pressured by science to teach man is the sole blame of Global Warming.

 

Believe or be cast out as a decenter.



#20 hoagie

hoagie
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,454 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:04 PM

I'm suspicious of anything knew.

 

I'm suspicious of anything gnu.



#21 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:25 PM

Which is the point of this article.

 

States will be peer-reviewed pressured by science to teach man is the sole blame of Global Warming.

 

Believe or be cast out as a decenter.

 

The climate science industry gets billions of dollars of funding from governments.

 

http://www.guardian....-review-science

 

Publish-or-perish: Peer review and the corruption of science

Pressure on scientists to publish has led to a situation where any paper, however bad, can now be printed in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed

 

Peer review is the process that decides whether your work gets published in an academic journal. It doesn't work very well any more, mainly as a result of the enormous number of papers that are being published (an estimated 1.3 million papers in 23,750 journals in 2006). There simply aren't enough competent people to do the job. The overwhelming effect of the huge (and unpaid) effort that is put into reviewing papers is to maintain a status hierarchy of journals. Any paper, however bad, can now get published in a journal that claims to be peer-reviewed.

The blame for this sad situation lies with the people who have imposed a publish-or-perish culture, namely research funders and senior people in universities. To have "written" 800 papers is regarded as something to boast about rather than being rather shameful. University PR departments encourage exaggerated claims, and hard-pressed authors go along with them.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/...al-publications

 

Peer review is at the heart of the processes of not just medical journals but of all of science. It is the method by which grants are allocated, papers published, academics promoted, and Nobel prizes won. It has allowed government agencies to approve untold numbers of drugs and vaccines, or rubber stamp thousands of chemicals as safe. It has until recently been unstudied. And its defects are easier to identify than its attributes. Yet it shows no sign of going away.

When something is peer reviewed it is in some sense blessed. Even journalists recognize this. When the BMJ published a highly controversial paper that argued that a new 'disease', female sexual dysfunction, was in some ways being created by pharmaceutical companies, a friend who is a journalist was very excited - not least because reporting it gave him a chance to get sex onto the front page of a highly respectable but somewhat priggish newspaper (the Financial Times). 'But,' the news editor wanted to know, 'was this paper peer reviewed?'. The implication was that if it had been it was good enough for the front page and if it had not been it was not.

WHAT IS PEER REVIEW?

Peer review is impossible to define in operational terms (an operational definition is one whereby if 50 of us looked at the same process we could all agree most of the time whether or not it was peer review). Peer review is thus like poetry, love, or justice. But it is something to do with a grant application or a paper being scrutinized by a third party - who is neither the author nor the person making a judgement on whether a grant should be given or a paper published. But who is a peer? Somebody doing exactly the same kind of research (in which case he or she is probably a direct competitor)? Somebody in the same discipline? Somebody who is an expert on methodology? And what is review? Somebody saying 'The paper looks all right to me', which is sadly what peer review sometimes seems to be. Or somebody pouring all over the paper, asking for raw data, repeating analyses, checking all the references, and making detailed suggestions for improvement? Such a review is vanishingly rare.

What is clear is that the forms of peer review are protean. Probably the systems of every journal and every grant giving body are different in at least some detail; and some systems are very different. There may even be some journals using the following classic system. The editor looks at the title of the paper and sends it to two friends whom the editor thinks know something about the subject. If both advise publication the editor sends it to the printers. If both advise against publication the editor rejects the paper. If the reviewers disagree the editor sends it to a third reviewer and does whatever he or she advises. This pastiche - which is not far from systems I have seen used - is little better than tossing a coin, because the level of agreement between reviewers on whether a paper should be published is little better than you'd expect by chance.

 



#22 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 12 April 2013 - 08:34 PM

tumblr_lm4s76YFV01qcgnydo1_400.jpg



#23 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,789 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 01:57 AM

It does about as much good as the debate itself. People who follow this science have made up their mind. I could throw hundreds of articles/published works of information that slams the CO2 AWG theory into the ground. But it's not going to change anything. It's not about science anymore, it's about belief.

 

Just like seany in the above. I post an article showing that once fringe side of the scientific debate is now mainstream and accepted by some of the biggest names in AWG alarmist community (Hansen). That a 20 year "hiatus" in temperature increases has been happening, while carbon emissions have sky rocketed. Showing, at least in part, a correlation between CO2 emission and temperature increases isn't there. Hansen says "well, it's a good thing." Then goes on a tirade about coal use and other "masks" of the evidence to perpetuate his failed models.

 

So what was the reply? To laugh and say "so this one article negates scientific concensus?" (meanwhile it is the alarmist side that admits 20 years worth of no temp increases with massive increases in CO2 emissions. For fun, and Im sure it went completely over looked, I added a paper published regarding  carbon sinks...a good read that shows our foests are doing their job quite effectively)

 

It's a joke. The whole debate is a joke. I'm just playing my part.

 

Nice armchair quarterbacking :clapping: :lol:

 

You can go back and read the threads on this through the last 8 years or so and you'll see that I've never completely bought in to what the effects of climate change will be - could be hotter or colder - but have supported the notion that anthropogenic sources are effecting our atmosphere. We've seen it clearly with ozone and acid rain and we've seen the effects of mercury and lead emissions, among others.  You can say "consensus doesn't mean anything in science" but basic atmospheric chemistry, equilibrium, and thermodynamics are certainly things that most scientists can get behind. Ideal Gas Law, Raoult's Law, the Law of Chemical Equilibrium, Henry's Law,....  They're not just good ideas ;) They're "Laws" - like gravity. Throw enough CO2 into the atmosphere and we have a pretty good idea on how it is going to affect atmospheric temperature given a particular solar radiation, how it is going to come to equilibrium in sinks - i.e., water (CO2 effects hardness and acidity) and plants.  We know quite a bit. Yes you can argue that the models don't fully account for all variables and the sun orbit is certainly one of them as to overall temp. But that contributor to temp change doesn't completely explain ocean acidification and many other impacts to the increased CO2 that more robust models and basic chemical/temp equilibrium do.  

 

Let's talk peer-review. While there's plenty of pressure to publish or perish, that's only at the universities and the pressure is from the department  heads who want professors to apply for research grants to fund graduate students, which eventually lead to publication.  It doesn't apply as much to the graduate students that are doing most of the hard research and often have the lead authorship. I know - been there. I published one paper during my tenure as a grad student based on my M.S. work. The other 2 papers from my doctorate came almost 2 years after I finished my degree and had moved on to the private sector. At that point, I could have cared less. By the time that you're done doing the "Groundhog Day" that is Ph.D. research, the last thing you want to do is to revisit it, unless maybe you're one of the 20% that decides to go on to an academic career and continue that research. Even then, it's probably hard to revisit. You're on to new things.  

 

Let me explain peer-review, because your citation above seems to dismiss it as some sort of pyramid scheme to get government money.  Peer-review often takes 2 - 3 years between an article's first submission and acceptance and publication - if it ever gets that far.  It starts with submission to a journal and then initial review by an associate editor to determine whether the work is worthy of a full review.  Once the initial acceptance is made, this is what happens: solicitation of a peer-review committee from those current in the field, candidate reviewers reading it and determining whether they are qualified to critically review the work and are willing to do so, the associate editor finalizing a list of reviewers and instructing them to provide a detailed review, the initial critical review with determination of whether the article can proceed for publication with revisions and answers to reviewer questions or whether it should be rejected, compilation of all of the reviews to be sent to the authors (with instructions to revise or notification that it has been rejected), first revisions and response to reviewers questions, re-review, answering any additional questions from the first revision, final revisions, final review (if there isn't a need for a 2nd round of revisions and response to reviewer questions), and then acceptance for publication if everyone signs off on it.  It's a long ass process. It's not a bunch of colleagues saying "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."  Believe me, I've been through it publishing 3 papers and I've been a reviewer on a half dozen or so. There's no free ride so the conspirators can just get more funding :rolleyes: It's a lot of fucking work to publish and to be a reviewer and your reputation on both ends matters. Send in BS and they will call you on it. Don't do your best to provide a critical review (i.e., just say "it looks fine") and you're just as likely to be taken off the potential reviewer list in the future by editors because you didn't provide a comprehensive assessment of the work. Of the 30+ papers I was asked to review when I was active, I declined at least half of them because I didn't feel I was the best-qualified person to provide a critical review (in which case the editors ask you to suggest potential reviewers if you know any). Of the remainer that I did review, I rejected about half of them outright as not refined enough for publication. The other half went through 1 or 2 rounds of revisions and I was often pretty demanding of my requests for backing info and clarification during the revisions. Mind you, these reviews all happened while I was in the private sector - I had no stake in the grant game at that point. I agreed to the many many hours of extra unpaid work just because that's what scientists do; somebody had taken the same time to review my papers at one point. It's not like you put down "has reviewed many papers for X and Y journals" in your resume. If you're a practicing professional with a doctorate, it's just assumed that you probably do that on occasion. Nobody pays a bonus for it ;)

 

Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated with all of this stuff and I'm just buying into Goebbel's Warming (though I would never ever say "global warming" because I think that's a misleading description).  Or maybe you are buying into Goebbel's anti-warming based on a few articles and your personal belief and pretty much nothing else? IDK. I think I paid my dues to have an educated opinion. Not to hype myself, but I did do my doctorate in environmental engineering; minored in chemistry; worked 5 years in a wind tunnel lab developing some understanding of atmospheric temp/chem stuff; spent the bulk of my undergrad, grad, and professional time focused on understanding field sampling, data interpretation, and the associated statistical interpretation and use in modeling; worked alongside people who went up to Greenland every summer to take ice cores to measure atmospheric CO2 and temp through the ages (I bet they were just sunbathing and faked it all); TA'd atmospheric chemistry and physics, water chemistry (which is primarily driven by CO2), and statistics for environmental monitoring, among others; went to countless research seminars on the latest research on atmospheric chem and climate change models, have been through the peer-review publishing process and been a reviewer many times, have had lots of very smart colleagues who have published and reviewed - most in the private sector with absolutely no potential financial interest in grants, etc., know several editors and associate editors of leading scientific journals who I have high regard for... 

 

I'm willing to give you far more credit on the financial stuff, even if I don't agree with a lot of it - but that's my opinion. You've clearly done an obsessive amount of research, though much seems to be directed in proving your own Goebbel's belief of what is reality.  I'd like to think my experience and associations put me in a little better position to comment on the actual science of climate change and why some 13k peer-reviewed papers might actually means something more than your opinion on Goebbel's warming based on a few cherry-picked articles ;)

 

P.S. TASB - I really do respect all the time that you seem to put into your own personal research on these issues. But the way you come across when talking about this stuff on the board - e.g. Goebbel's Warming  and loliberals - is, frankly, pretty dismissive to the many that have just as equally valid opinions or often a better knowledge base. I've worked alongside many grad students that did A+ research on the mechanisms of climate change. I have a really solid background in environmental sampling and data analysis and I'm not afraid to call BS on something if it doesn't meet scientific prudence. To just write off all of this stuff as Goebell's Warming and some sort of massive joke conspiracy to get funding is to dismiss the years of frustrating research of my colleagues and to diminish their reputation. All based on what? Your desire to basically question any norm? Because you read enough stuff that fits into your mode of questioning whatever might be the norm?  That's what you seem to do. With pretty much everything. Seek to turn the prevailing belief or research on its head somehow as some sort of conspiracy. Not saying that it can't be the case sometimes, but Occam's Razor prevails more times than not...



#24 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,789 posts

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:27 AM

FWIW, I don't think that textbooks should focus on presenting "climate change" as fact the way that it is generally portrayed in the press or in politics. That's not good science education. I think a reasonable approach is to build lesson plans around the concept that climate change could be a major issue in our future and then break it down into science lessons on atmospheric chemistry, how greenhouse gases alter the thermodymanics of the atmosphere, equilibrium chemistry between water and air (i.e., water chemistry and how increased atmospheric CO2 effects water acidity and the potential impacts to reefs, clam beds, etc.).  There's lots of important and informative science lessons that can be based around the concept of increased CO2 in the atmosphere.



#25 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,106 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 06:39 AM

Nice armchair quarterbacking :clapping: :lol:

 

You can go back and read the threads on this through the last 8 years or so and you'll see that I've never completely bought in to what the effects of climate change will be - could be hotter or colder - but have supported the notion that anthropogenic sources are effecting our atmosphere. We've seen it clearly with ozone and acid rain and we've seen the effects of mercury and lead emissions, among others.  You can say "consensus doesn't mean anything in science" but basic atmospheric chemistry, equilibrium, and thermodynamics are certainly things that most scientists can get behind. Ideal Gas Law, Raoult's Law, the Law of Chemical Equilibrium, Henry's Law,....  They're not just good ideas ;) They're "Laws" - like gravity. Throw enough CO2 into the atmosphere and we have a pretty good idea on how it is going to affect atmospheric temperature given a particular solar radiation, how it is going to come to equilibrium in sinks - i.e., water (CO2 effects hardness and acidity) and plants.  We know quite a bit. Yes you can argue that the models don't fully account for all variables and the sun orbit is certainly one of them as to overall temp. But that contributor to temp change doesn't completely explain ocean acidification and many other impacts to the increased CO2 that more robust models and basic chemical/temp equilibrium do.  

 

Let's talk peer-review. While there's plenty of pressure to publish or perish, that's only at the universities and the pressure is from the department  heads who want professors to apply for research grants to fund graduate students, which eventually lead to publication.  It doesn't apply as much to the graduate students that are doing most of the hard research and often have the lead authorship. I know - been there. I published one paper during my tenure as a grad student based on my M.S. work. The other 2 papers from my doctorate came almost 2 years after I finished my degree and had moved on to the private sector. At that point, I could have cared less. By the time that you're done doing the "Groundhog Day" that is Ph.D. research, the last thing you want to do is to revisit it, unless maybe you're one of the 20% that decides to go on to an academic career and continue that research. Even then, it's probably hard to revisit. You're on to new things.  

 

Let me explain peer-review, because your citation above seems to dismiss it as some sort of pyramid scheme to get government money.  Peer-review often takes 2 - 3 years between an article's first submission and acceptance and publication - if it ever gets that far.  It starts with submission to a journal and then initial review by an associate editor to determine whether the work is worthy of a full review.  Once the initial acceptance is made, this is what happens: solicitation of a peer-review committee from those current in the field, candidate reviewers reading it and determining whether they are qualified to critically review the work and are willing to do so, the associate editor finalizing a list of reviewers and instructing them to provide a detailed review, the initial critical review with determination of whether the article can proceed for publication with revisions and answers to reviewer questions or whether it should be rejected, compilation of all of the reviews to be sent to the authors (with instructions to revise or notification that it has been rejected), first revisions and response to reviewers questions, re-review, answering any additional questions from the first revision, final revisions, final review (if there isn't a need for a 2nd round of revisions and response to reviewer questions), and then acceptance for publication if everyone signs off on it.  It's a long ass process. It's not a bunch of colleagues saying "wink, wink, nudge, nudge."  Believe me, I've been through it publishing 3 papers and I've been a reviewer on a half dozen or so. There's no free ride so the conspirators can just get more funding :rolleyes: It's a lot of fucking work to publish and to be a reviewer and your reputation on both ends matters. Send in BS and they will call you on it. Don't do your best to provide a critical review (i.e., just say "it looks fine") and you're just as likely to be taken off the potential reviewer list in the future by editors because you didn't provide a comprehensive assessment of the work. Of the 30+ papers I was asked to review when I was active, I declined at least half of them because I didn't feel I was the best-qualified person to provide a critical review (in which case the editors ask you to suggest potential reviewers if you know any). Of the remainer that I did review, I rejected about half of them outright as not refined enough for publication. The other half went through 1 or 2 rounds of revisions and I was often pretty demanding of my requests for backing info and clarification during the revisions. Mind you, these reviews all happened while I was in the private sector - I had no stake in the grant game at that point. I agreed to the many many hours of extra unpaid work just because that's what scientists do; somebody had taken the same time to review my papers at one point. It's not like you put down "has reviewed many papers for X and Y journals" in your resume. If you're a practicing professional with a doctorate, it's just assumed that you probably do that on occasion. Nobody pays a bonus for it ;)

 

Maybe I'm just too indoctrinated with all of this stuff and I'm just buying into Goebbel's Warming (though I would never ever say "global warming" because I think that's a misleading description).  Or maybe you are buying into Goebbel's anti-warming based on a few articles and your personal belief and pretty much nothing else? IDK. I think I paid my dues to have an educated opinion. Not to hype myself, but I did do my doctorate in environmental engineering; minored in chemistry; worked 5 years in a wind tunnel lab developing some understanding of atmospheric temp/chem stuff; spent the bulk of my undergrad, grad, and professional time focused on understanding field sampling, data interpretation, and the associated statistical interpretation and use in modeling; worked alongside people who went up to Greenland every summer to take ice cores to measure atmospheric CO2 and temp through the ages (I bet they were just sunbathing and faked it all); TA'd atmospheric chemistry and physics, water chemistry (which is primarily driven by CO2), and statistics for environmental monitoring, among others; went to countless research seminars on the latest research on atmospheric chem and climate change models, have been through the peer-review publishing process and been a reviewer many times, have had lots of very smart colleagues who have published and reviewed - most in the private sector with absolutely no potential financial interest in grants, etc., know several editors and associate editors of leading scientific journals who I have high regard for... 

 

I'm willing to give you far more credit on the financial stuff, even if I don't agree with a lot of it - but that's my opinion. You've clearly done an obsessive amount of research, though much seems to be directed in proving your own Goebbel's belief of what is reality.  I'd like to think my experience and associations put me in a little better position to comment on the actual science of climate change and why some 13k peer-reviewed papers might actually means something more than your opinion on Goebbel's warming based on a few cherry-picked articles ;)

 

P.S. TASB - I really do respect all the time that you seem to put into your own personal research on these issues. But the way you come across when talking about this stuff on the board - e.g. Goebbel's Warming  and loliberals - is, frankly, pretty dismissive to the many that have just as equally valid opinions or often a better knowledge base. I've worked alongside many grad students that did A+ research on the mechanisms of climate change. I have a really solid background in environmental sampling and data analysis and I'm not afraid to call BS on something if it doesn't meet scientific prudence. To just write off all of this stuff as Goebell's Warming and some sort of massive joke conspiracy to get funding is to dismiss the years of frustrating research of my colleagues and to diminish their reputation. All based on what? Your desire to basically question any norm? Because you read enough stuff that fits into your mode of questioning whatever might be the norm?  That's what you seem to do. With pretty much everything. Seek to turn the prevailing belief or research on its head somehow as some sort of conspiracy. Not saying that it can't be the case sometimes, but Occam's Razor prevails more times than not...


Very nicely done, Seany. Very nice.



#26 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 13 April 2013 - 02:04 PM

All very good points.  

 

But...

 

May be the scientists should call it ecosystem changes effected by man or something better.   Just not Global warming?

 

That would be a good start for me, the earth has warmed and cooled historically, and to tie to man alone as fact is where I tend to doubt the whole thing because of poor labeling and lumping in of every aspects of changes into one brand.  Global warming.

 

 

 

As for peer reviewed pressure.   I feel this is scientists saying we are smarter and it has been reviewed by almost every scientists, and they all believe this as fact.  Now continue to give us government funding (even though we dont have it to spend even if it is this important), and teach our kids this.   See how it could be seen as a political angle?



#27 Jabadoodle

Jabadoodle
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,106 posts
  • LocationBoston MA

Posted 13 April 2013 - 08:36 PM

All very good points.  

 

But...

 

May be the scientists should call it ecosystem changes effected by man or something better.   Just not Global warming?

 

Isn't it more formally referred to as "climate change" or "global climate change" in the past few years??



#28 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 03:28 AM

That's a wonderful response, seany. And I can agree with most of it other than a few fine things.

 

Always nice to see that type of time taken to really reflect a thought.

 

Thank you. :heart:



#29 seany

seany
  • VibeTribe
  • 7,789 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:32 PM

:D



#30 concert andy

concert andy
  • VibeTribe
  • 12,820 posts
  • LocationPhilly

Posted 14 April 2013 - 01:50 PM

Isn't it more formally referred to as "climate change" or "global climate change" in the past few years??

 

No idea, but I do not think "Climate change" is a good label either.  To me it sounds like the same thing.  No one talks about climate change in regards to cooling.



#31 TakeAStepBack

TakeAStepBack
  • VibeTribe
  • 19,019 posts

Posted 14 April 2013 - 11:05 PM

:D

 

PS. My point with it, is that there is a deliberate politicizing of the science. I'm not saying none of it holds merit. What I am saying is that there is a narrative driving this particular area of science that isn't measuring up. The foundation of AGW is on that greenhouse gases are raising atmospheric temperatures and causing unprecedented weather and fallout...all on the man made release of emissions. Yet, observation is heavily deviating from predictions from models, and no one wants to address it. We just keep the narrative and continue without conducting scientific method outside of the popular paradigm/axiom. Or allowing any other debate to take mainstream. There is a death grip on the current consensus  and frankly, it's looking more and more like they are wrong and we need to go back to the beginning and decide what is good analysis and what is not.

 

This is not a new trait to man's exploration.