In April, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich rocked the conservative world by stating in a highly publicized Capitol Hill debate with Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) that he believed global warming was real.
Since then, Gingrich has published a new book on the subject entitled "A Contract with the Earth."
A few weeks ago, the former Speaker sat down with New York Times environment reporter Andrew C. Revkin to discuss his views on this controversial subject.
This resulted in a marvelous video posted at the Times website (available here), along with a November 13 article entitled "Challenges to Both Left and Right on Global Warming" (h/t NBer botg):
In "A Contract With the Earth," Mr. Gingrich, with his co-author Terry L. Maple (a professor of psychology at Georgia Tech and president of the Palm Beach Zoo), has written a manifesto challenging conservatives not just to grudgingly accept, but to embrace, the idea that a healthy environment is necessary for a healthy democracy and economy.
The book invokes concepts like the precautionary principles that are anathema to many in Mr. Gingrich's party. In a rare stance for those on the right, the authors say curbing carbon dioxide emissions (affordably) is a wise strategy.
They call for America to lead in moving to a world where "fossil fuels have been largely modified for carbon recycling or replaced by carbon-neutral alternatives."
The book does reveal in spots Mr. Gingrich's disdain for what he calls liberals' failed reliance on legislation and litigation in environmental protection. It is all about carrots, like tax incentives, and nowhere about sticks, like binding emissions limits.
But for the most part it is aimed at conservatives, urging them to embrace their inner Teddy Roosevelt and craft a new "entrepreneurial environmentalism."
NewsBusters readers are likely aware that I don't agree with some of Gingrich's positions on this issue, in particular, his concern for carbon dioxide emissions and the need to curb them.
Frankly, I don't understand how anyone familiar with the process of photosynthesis, and its importance to life on this planet, can be so afraid of CO2.
Given my esteem for the former Speaker, and his vast intellect, I would prefer to see some effort on his part to open up the debate on this cornerstone of the global warming myth rather than assisting in keeping it closed.
After all, the supposed consensus that there is a significant correlation between rising atmospheric levels of CO2 and rising temperatures, other than being brought into serious question by skeptical scientists that have proven time and again that CO2 levels rise after temperatures do, also defies a statistical metaphysical certitude: correlation does not mean causality.
To make this clear, in America, there is a 100 percent correlation between children going back to school and, within a couple of months, leaves falling off trees.
Happens every year, doesn't it?
Does anyone believe kids going back to school cause this annual phenomenon?
Yet, the climate alarmists' entire cataclysmic premise relies on such a preposterous conclusion.
Someone as plain-spoken as Gingrich could make people understand this, maybe even those in the media who claim the debate is over.
As I enthusiastically welcome his participation in this discussion, I believe it is incumbent upon the former Speaker to assist in the identification and verification of all facets of the science involved rather than endorsing this one controversial component.
This is critical given the number of gases in the atmosphere believed to have a significantly greater greenhouse impact than CO2. By ignoring their contribution, and focusing efforts exclusively on CO2, Gingrich might be advocating expensive solutions that end up solving absolutely nothing.
Such seems to defy the former Speaker's fiscally conservative track record in Congress.
Taking this a step further, as Revkin is also a clearly insightful individual that wants to be an active part in this discussion as both a scientist and a journalist, I would love to see him address such questions as well.
Even though I disagree with many of Revkin's views on this issue, I applaud his efforts to bring critical areas of this subject forward, and would like to see him challenge what most of his colleagues in journalism blindly accept.
After all, scientific assertions, regardless of how many people believe them, should be able to withstand scrutiny if they are at all relevant.
In fact, this is indeed the basis of science, something that those claiming the debate is over disgracefully misrepresent, and those looking to advance the discussion should advocate rather than squelch.
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Comments Policy
It's a trend
November 27, 2007 - 11:23 ET by sarcasmoAl Gore just discussed the same thing with President Bush.
JMR
Rally online with fans of Dr. Ron Paul.
The debate is over should be a warning bell
November 27, 2007 - 11:39 ET by c5thenIt is used by those who want to comandeer science to force people to do what they want. As you so aptly pointed out, correlation does not mean cause-effect relationship. Many new (and old) studies are comming to light which show that CO2 increase and decrease in the atmosphere is rather a trailing indicator and not a causal factor.
Al Gore will be shown by history to be probably the biggest charletan ever and to have made hundreds of millions of dollars off his falsities and exaggerations. It makes me want to start a "Stop Continental Drift" organization to capitalize off of that comming catastrophe.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Fred08.com
Here is the Peer-Reviewed Evidence
November 27, 2007 - 22:05 ET by PopularTechCO2 lags Temperature changes:
180 years of atmospheric CO2 gas analysis by chemical methods
(Energy & Environment, Volume 18, Number 2, pp. 259-282(24), March 2007)
- Beck, Ernst-Georg
Ice core records of atmospheric CO2 around the last three glacial terminations
(Science, Vol. 283. no. 5408, pp. 1712 - 1714, 12 March 1999)
- Hubertus Fischer, Martin Wahlen, Jesse Smith, Derek Mastroianni, Bruce Deck
"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."
Southern Hemisphere and Deep-Sea Warming Led Deglacial Atmospheric CO2 Rise and Tropical Warming
(Science, September 27, 2007)
- Lowell Stott, Axel Timmermann, Robert Thunell
The phase relations among atmospheric CO2 content, temperature and global ice volume over the past 420 ka
(Quaternary Science Reviews, Volume 20, Issue 4, Pages 583-589, February 2001)
- Manfred Mudelsee
Timing of Atmospheric CO2 and Antarctic Temperature Changes Across Termination III
(Science 14, Vol. 299. no. 5613, March 2003)
- Nicolas Caillon, Jeffrey P. Severinghaus, Jean Jouzel, Jean-Marc Barnola, Jiancheng Kang, Volodya Y. Lipenkov
"The sequence of events during Termination III suggests that the CO2 increase lagged Antarctic deglacial warming by 800 ± 200 years and preceded the Northern Hemisphere deglaciation."
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
It's not about science
November 27, 2007 - 11:39 ET by 10ksnookerIt's about taxes ... And getting the gullible science challenged to pay those taxes.
As to Gingrich, he is all about staying in the good with what is left of the liberal media -- Hence his spouting CO2 nonsense that defies science and logic. But this way Newt stays in the limelight and doesn't get attacked by the liberal media anymore. It's all about image rehabilitation for Newt, and book sales.
When Newt shows on TV, I turn the channel.
The real Newt
November 27, 2007 - 19:47 ET by macummingsAgreed, turn the channel.
If you haven't yet, I recommend reading Tom Coburn's book "Breach of Trust." Among its many enlightening tales, Coburn tells a story about Newt that I believe reveals all we need to know about Gingrich. He may be smart, but he's been in politics too long and lost his way. The wrong guy to tell me about global warming.
Who wouldn't want to plug in our cars and quit paying for terrorism oil. But let's not make worse decisions to get there.
MAC
Bye Newt!!
November 27, 2007 - 11:44 ET by mytwocentsNewt may be brilliant, but in this case he seems a bit tarnished. I'm ready to kick another 'conservative' to the curb.
2cent...Sounds like a
November 27, 2007 - 12:06 ET by Clear thinker2cent...
Sounds like a rappers name. Just kidding!
I saw Newt in a debate about 6 months ago on c-span. I did not catch the name of the guy (not Al Gore) he was debating (getting old and memory fading is the real story), but it was about AGW. Newt agreed with the guy more than he disagreed. Watching that debate told me that Newt was no longer a viable, possible candidate for POTUS.
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
CT
November 27, 2007 - 12:50 ET by mytwocentsCT, I started being a bit caucious with Newt when he was cozying up to HRC and her Universal Health Care junk. Lost a lot of respect for him.
It would have been far more
November 27, 2007 - 11:51 ET by dscottIt would have been far more productive for Newt to approach this whole issue of the environment from the "conservative" POV, instead of this contrived hysteria of AGW. From a conservative POV, the priorities of energy usage are waste, efficiency, efficacy, cost effectivenes and national security all of which benefit the environment when Capitalism is allowed to address the problem instead of bungling government bureaucrats.
Capitalism is the result of the collective ingenuity of entrepreneurs who explore all avenues to produce a product or service which uses the least energy and resources to maximize the bottom line. One only needs to look to the Soviet Union and China before the embrace of Capitalism to know that bureaucrats are not innovators. The outcome of Socialism is consistent, waste, pollution and enrichment of the elites at the expense of the commoner. The bottom line contrary to the Socialists caterwauling about excess cost is the inducement to risk capital is profit. Without profit there can be no future investment unless the elites steal it via taxation under the guise of social good. We have already learned the lesson that bureaucrats are incompetent when it comes to investing, one does not need a college degree realize this.
True leadership recognizes setting attainable goals without the contraints of micromanagement (PC) will increase the probability of reaching those goals. We currently have the technology which could substancially reach some of the more ambitious goals, however, because of PC considerations about nuclear power and coal, we will never reach those goals. Nuclear power and the electric car can give us energy independence or virtually so, but because of hysteria driven stupidity the cost of energy will only go up and the standard of living being based on energy consumption inturn must decline. Gee thanks libs and environmental wackos, it must be nice to sit in the ivory tower and watch the little peons grovel in poverty in the name of saving the planet.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Like most who embrace AGW and governmental fixes, Gingrich
November 27, 2007 - 12:02 ET by RJhas picked the boogyman windmill of CO2 to tilt at.
Otherwise, his idea of offering carrots rather than sticks would make sense.
Think of what could be accomplished environmentally if we focused instead on adequate supplies of clean water.
Newt Gingrich is a Scientific Illiterate
November 27, 2007 - 12:14 ET by PopularTechSorry but I refuse to defend this hypocrite and I think he is absolutely clueless on scientific matters. The precautionary principle? What a moron.
Newt Gingrich, Ph.D. Modern European History (no science degree, a Hypocrite, not a conservative on the environment)
Um a healthy environment has nothing to do with getting rid of CO2. Maybe he needs to go figure out what pollution really is because he is as clueless as Bill O'reilly.
Again more propaganda on this is a pollution issue. Does he think conservatives are that stupid?
The Kyoto Protocol is a treaty to regulate 'Greenhouse Gases' only:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Methane (CH4)
- Nitrous oxide (N2O) (Laughing Gas, Nitrous, NOS)
- Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs)
- Perfluorocarbons (PFCs)
- Sulphur hexafluoride (SF6)
Car Exhaust consists of:
Harmless:
- Carbon dioxide (CO2)
- Nitrogen (N2)
- Water vapor (H2O)
Some Pollutants:
- Carbon monoxide (CO) *
- Hydrocarbons or Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) *
- Nitric oxide (NO) *
- Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) *
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Your car's catalytic converter removes about 95% of these pollutants.
Smog consists of:
- Ozone (O3) * (formed from the photochemical reaction of Nitrogen dioxide (NO2) + Hydrocarbons)
- Particulate matter (PM-10) *
- Sulfur dioxide (SO2) *
* Air Pollution is already regulated in the: 1970 Clean Air Act (Amended: 1977, 1990)
* Water Pollution is already regulated in the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (Amended: Clean Water Act of 1977, Water Quality Act of 1987)
* The Clear Skies Act of 2003 Failed to Pass the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Bloomberg)
As for the Debate being over, Wrong!
NO 'Consensus' on "Man-Made" Global Warming
Newt pack it up you have no credibility on anything anymore least of all scientific matters.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
-
November 27, 2007 - 13:56 ET by dahliatraversUm a healthy environment has nothing to do with getting rid of CO2
This is the problem with promulgating an erroneous premise (AGW) built on poor/incomplete data. Someone else adds to it with their own foolish, erroneous theory.
And we wouldn't care but governments are ramping up and already enacting very bad, very costly, completely pointless policies on the basis of these theories.
Who talked about starting a movement to stop continental drift? That's a great idea. Let's find a prominent spokesperson and start sounding the dangers of plate tectonics.
Earthquakes. Volcanoes. Rift Valleys. Yes, we can and we must stop continental drift.
Lessee, we need a name for our movement. How about:
>| Check the Teck |<
This is why I'm glad Newt's
November 27, 2007 - 12:30 ET by mattmThis is why I'm glad Newt's not running...
The premise that "consevatives should embrace...that a healthy environment is necessary for a healthy democracy and economy" is off-base.
The assumption that conservatives have heretofore been enemies of the environment is just plain wrong. It's a lie that has been pounded by the Left for decades...like republicans are racists, etc. Newt's acceptance of this false premise will only result in a perpetuation of a negative stereotype.
This is why I cringed at Bush's "compassionate conservatism;" it perpetuated the stereotype that conservatives are not naturally compassionate, so we have to make a concerted effort to overcome our natural meanness and try to be nice...
The fact is conservatism (in the free-market, constitutional republican sense of the term) is automatically compassionate, pro-environment, pro-equality and pro-peace because, the policies of conservatism, i.e. low taxes, limited constitutional government, free enterprise, strong national defense, etc. all lead to prosperity, peace, and a clean environment.
It's no coincidence that the least free nations of the world are the most polluted, and the freer and more prosperous a nation becomes, the cleaner it gets - because people have a personal stake in keeping it clean.
Newt is a very smart guy, but he's a big disappointment to me.
natural meanness I prefer
November 27, 2007 - 13:36 ET by dscottnatural meanness
I prefer the terms "personal responsibility" and "negative consequences". Of course, this is easily misrepresented being callous and indifferent to the plight of others, I call continually bailing people out of their mistakes - "enabling behavior".
This is one of the essential differences between liberals and conservatives. Liberals enable people who make mistakes so they can feel good about themselves when they rescue them as they don't believe in absolute standards conduct. Of course, it always helps to have crowds of adoring fans on tap to sing your praises as you shower people with your benevolence. Liberals it seems are perpetually looking for a pat on the back for their deeds, if they didn't get the praise, they wouldn't do the deeds. They have their reward in full.
Conservatives allow people to experience the consequences so they can learn from their mistakes to become productive members of society. Living successfully, following the rules, and teaching others to live that way is all the reward that is necessary in life. Their rewards are still to come.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Once, years ago---
November 27, 2007 - 12:39 ET by misterbillOnce, years ago---an older fellow's wife retired. They soon packed up and moved to Georgia. The older fellow had retired earlier and had time to study some political and economical data. His eyes turned to Georgia. Why, he even went back to work at 63 years of age because folks in Georgia cared what one can do and not how old one was. Georgia also had a great Representative in Newt Gingrich and another very good one in Bob Barr. Well they gerrymandered Barr's territory and , so to speak, got him "unelected". Rep. Barr then became a Libertarian. Newt had trouble with his hormones and got himself in trouble with the voters and soon was no longer Speaker of the House. Through all of it, this older fellow was a Newt fan. He even hoped Newt would make a run for the Presidency. But Newt was told by his advisers that his checkered, romantic personal life would be shunned by the American voters so he did not join the fray. Unfortunately, there is a virus sweeping through this country. It is AGWaphobia. Its chief proponent is a "wannabe" President. This goracle won over many people and actually won a Nobel Prize, and we all know how valuable those prizes are???!!! So, Newt's new strategy is to court those who have bitten on the fear bait dabbled by the goracle and 32500 scientists, (even though 19,000 other scientists claim it is a fraud), and jumped on what Newt believes is a bandwagon rolling to the future.
In doing so, Newt has lost the confidence and trust of this older fellow. He has eliminated himself from any future considerations for public office. He has implied to me , (or , I have inferred), that he will do no more than pay lip service to the various issues that beset America. It is not a bad thing to ride the middle of the road at times. It is not a wise thing to be in the middle, if the horses are on each side of you. You may get trampled.
Adios, Newt.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government.
Author:
Implications
November 27, 2007 - 12:56 ET by iveseenitallSpeaking of "implied", I gather the clear implication from Newt that conservatives do not care about the environment, simply because they've pointed out the obvious, that AlGore and his Hollywood buddies are charlatons who prey on the ignorant for their own personal gain. This environmental game has been going on all my life, and since Newt is around my age, he knows it too. Money corrupts and Newt has joined the crowd. I believe it's a financial and politcal move on his part. I'm just kicking myself for having stuck up for him through his troubles. Quite disheartening. Sad for America. Maybe Buchanan is right; we may be on our way out.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal" (or a "conservative" , turned "liberal")
That's what I said.
November 27, 2007 - 13:09 ET by mattmThat's what I said. Conservatives who accept the false premises of the Left are harming, rather than helping the cause.
Conservatism, by it's nature, is compassionate, environmentally-friendly, peace-promoting, equality-creating, prosperity-enhancing and is a protecting force against the evils of socialist tyranny and other forms of oppression.
No one who calls himself a conservative should apologize to anyone for any aspect of the conservative viewpoint, or compromise it in any way. Newt has prostituted himself.
Evironmentalism vs. Conservationism
November 27, 2007 - 13:24 ET by PopularTechIt is about Evironmentalism vs. Conservationism.
Conservatives want to preserve the environment so humans can continue to use and enjoy it (Conservationism).
Liberals believe the environment must be protected from humans (Environmentalism).
Just tell people you are a Conservationist not an Environmentalist.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
a fine tune
November 27, 2007 - 13:53 ET by mattmWhile I basically agree, I think my emphasis is a bit different.
It's not that conservatives want to preserve the environment in order to use it, but that the conservative principles of free market economics and private property, when put into practice, natually act to preserve and protect the environment.
PT, conservatives want to 'preserve' the environment???
November 27, 2007 - 14:00 ET by professor truthOh, I think I get it:
clear skies(conservative)= massive air pollution(liberal)
healthy forests(conservative)= clear cut forests(liberal)
preserve the environment for humans=destroy all ecology for profit(liberal)
The battle cry for conservatives is : We had to destroy the environment in order it save it.
You deliberately refuse to
November 27, 2007 - 14:41 ET by mattmYou deliberately refuse to "get it"... When people own property and can freely engage in commerce, without government infringement or coercion, the environment benefits.
This is why the socialist/communist countries are the poorest and most polluted in the world whereas the capitalist countries are the cleanest.
But I don't expect you to give a crud, because as I've said before I'll say again -
Facts don't matter to Libs...
No, Matt, it's YOU who doesn't get it:
November 27, 2007 - 14:50 ET by professor truthYou don't have to have an "either laissez faire capitalism" or a "Stalinist Communism", there are other choices, like the social democracies of Sweden, Denmark and Finland, whose economies are very competitive and whose social welfare programs are far superior to anything the US has. I think social democracies are the best choice.
Are you cleverpig's daddy?
November 27, 2007 - 14:56 ET by RJShe's a Berkely gal who posts here and she pines for Sweden, Denmark, and Finland, too. You could move there if you dislike our country, you know....
Geeeez, pt is getting old.
November 27, 2007 - 15:01 ET by Clear thinkerEverything this pt guy says is starting to sound like...Blah, blah blah blah blah blah blah blah, snort, blah blah blah....
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
Fish and the Perfesser begin to smell after three days...
November 27, 2007 - 15:09 ET by RJ....as the saying goes....but the Perfesser was already beginning to smell on the day he arrived.
He doesn't get it that absolutely everything he's said has already been said over and over and over by previous leftys posting here on NB. It's why he's been dubbed "Professor Talking Point." ;^)
DunceJ, now I get it
November 27, 2007 - 15:26 ET by professor truthYou're a GENIUS!! WOW! and to think that I thought you were only a liquified, Teri schiavo brain individual. All those Chomsky books you've read and critiqied. And Howard Zinn, Naomi Klein nad Michael Parenti, along with gore Vidal, Chris Hedges, Eric Foner, Larry Everest, Andrew Bacevich, all those climate scientists. Yes, you've read them all, critiqued all their papers, combed over all their calculations and arguments.You know it all . And you know all the secrets of the universe to boot. My mistake. GeniusJ. Noam Chomsky's got nothing on you. And to think that such a genius is unable to answer simple questions. And so humble. I never thought that someone who knew everything could pretend to have the intelligence of an anencephaletic mongoloid. I was wrong. GeniusJ, I admit it. No one can surpass your cutting edge intellect and biting, hip humor. GeniusJ, I salute you!
Snif....snif....
November 27, 2007 - 15:30 ET by RJ...what's that smell? Three day old fish or the "Perfesser?"
Awww...you're still pouting because you blundered into my trap that proved you to be a hypocrit and a fascist... ;^)
Unmasked
November 28, 2007 - 21:17 ET by PopularTechI have yet to meet a hardcore environmentalist who is not a Socialist and has read Chomsky. This continues to prove the point that what AGW is really about is destroying Capitalism and the U.S.
Fortunately they slipped up and forgot that science has to be proven via the scientific method and not bogus computer models.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
CT, so you already know the relationship
November 27, 2007 - 15:14 ET by professor truthbetween disasters(natural or from wars) which shock people and
how these disasters are exploited to impose "free market"(translation: unrestricted rape and pillage of labor and environment by multinational corporations ) against the will of the majority of citizens. Naomi Klein's book is extensively documented. I'm sure a genius like you has completely read it and can quote page and paragraph verbatim.
Blah blah blah blah snort
November 27, 2007 - 15:16 ET by Clear thinkerBlah blah blah blah snort blah blah blah....
Get Email updates from Fred http://socialnet.imwithfred.com/email_alert_july_26.html
I have to admit PT, I am
November 27, 2007 - 15:24 ET by Sick-n-TiredI have to admit PT, I am impressed; you have yet to mention realclimate.org yet today!.....................
S and T, thanks for the compliment
November 27, 2007 - 15:28 ET by professor truthand you've impressed me by being able to read my posts without shouting "fascist hypocrite."
I can't say that I ever did
November 27, 2007 - 16:00 ET by Sick-n-TiredI can't say that I ever did I don't believe. I mostly just debate the points.
Did you ever take up on my proposed project for your class(es)?
Regardless of the side you are on concerning "AGW", I think it would be a great exercise for your students to search out that data and come up with their own conclusions and then be forced to support those therein. But you have to give them (at least for starters) equal representation of the arguement, beit websites etc., that support AND deny AGW---and be without your personal bias.
S and T, excellent idea
November 27, 2007 - 16:09 ET by professor truthunfortunately, climate science is pretty complicated and requires an excellent cross understanding of both physics, chemistry as well as understanding computer modelling(something I plead ignorance to)and how to create reliable models. From a historical and paleoclimate, apporoach, it would be an excellent class and allow room for a lot of critical thinking actiivties. It should probably be taught as either an AP or college level topic.
Pt, I'm glad to see you
November 27, 2007 - 16:24 ET by Sick-n-TiredPt,
I'm glad to see you would be up for the this, because whether you and I agree or not there is still plenty of room for and should be debate on this issue of AGW vs. natural climate cyclicity and variation for which, as you have stated, the science of the subject is complex and immense.
However, I still think it would be a worthwhile venture due to the fact that these kids are getting force-fed information through the media----from only one side of the arguement, you have to admit---and as it stands (like the majority of the population) do not understand the issue anyways. This would give them the chance to seek out and learn a little bit more than what they see on t.v. and would help hone their research and interprative skills, and how to debate their conclusions.
Prof, I see you were
November 27, 2007 - 23:29 ET by Sick-n-TiredProf,
I see you were back---so what do you think of the proposed lesson plan?..
nice to talk, S and T
November 27, 2007 - 23:41 ET by professor truthI might try to show films with diffferent views, like Gore's inconvenient truth along with Globalwarming swindle and teach the science based on the evidence presented in both films. Ithink it's important for students to writehow they feel about AGW, pro and con. I was a AGW skeptic in the early nineties but have moved toward the pro AGW position lately. I would also give students research sites(skeptic sites nd AGW sites, for them to reserch. I think debates would be very important. The idea is to use the available science.
There may be available sites where students could enter data and run climate model simulations, extracting data and forming predictions.
profff
November 27, 2007 - 23:45 ET by botgas a science teacher you should have them write what they think. Science is not about feelings.
GoHunter08
btog
November 27, 2007 - 23:49 ET by Airforce_5_OBut is liberal science based in fact or feeling?
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
botg, read my post above.
November 27, 2007 - 23:53 ET by professor truthI mention this as being important.
So how do you FEEL about
November 27, 2007 - 23:59 ET by Airforce_5_OSo how do you FEEL about that btog?????
The only thing you should feel when shooting insurgents is the rifle recoil.
write what they feel?
November 28, 2007 - 00:00 ET by botgand your usage reveals your underlying modus, so ingrained that you failed to recognise it when pointed out.
GoHunter08
If you do it, good luck.
November 28, 2007 - 09:43 ET by Sick-n-TiredIf you do it, good luck. sounds like you will try and keep your personal bias out of it, which will be the toughest part.
If, after the project, they interpret the data and conclude that AGW is overblown and oversold and rather subscribe to the data suggesting natural climate variability will you try to then change their minds back to AGW? I hope not, as they will have seen the data and made their own scientific determinations.
And I would stay away from the modeling (and usuaully do) as there is a lot of assumptions and conjecture in this process. My opinion is the best data is the historical data---that can't be manipulated by turning a few knobs or changing the controls....
S and T,
November 27, 2007 - 23:48 ET by professor truthA climate science class or program is an excellent way to organize
biology , physics, and chemistry into a valuable learning experience.
You can also incorporate geology, oceanography and astronomy, so it would be a huge task. Honestly, a group of teachers with diverse opinions and qualifications would be needed. When you think ofthis topic, there are so many sub subjects involved that starting such a class might overwhelm someone. I think we can get more students interested in science when there is an applied central theme. What are your thoughts on this??
Would you still teach the Scientific Method?
November 28, 2007 - 01:16 ET by PopularTechI mean it seems like your science class would include some computer illiterate brainwashing kids while pretending that the scientific method does not exist.
I think we should teach SCIENCE not emotional hysteria based on a bunch of computer illiterates not understanding how computers work preaching doomsday.
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
RJ, I disagree with most of
November 27, 2007 - 16:52 ET by KarmaRJ, I disagree with most of cleverpigs views, but her reasoning and civility are leaps and bounds above профессор правда. If he is her father, she has my sympathy.
Karma, I think cleverpig shows too much native intelligence
November 27, 2007 - 16:59 ET by RJto have really fallen from that tree.
And you're correct about both her views and her ability to disagree without the melodrama and meltdowns of the so-called Perfesser.
"Cleverpig" might want to
November 27, 2007 - 17:48 ET by alamojb"Cleverpig" might want to study up a bit on "war on the swedes". (The modern, current one.)
Well Professor, if those
November 27, 2007 - 17:02 ET by bassndudeWell Professor, if those are what you prefer, why not go? If those countries are so superior to the US, and you are so enamored with them, why are you not there?
I can tell you why. They are not as superior as you make them out to be. You know your better off here. Besides, if you moved to one of those countries, and wanted to be a citizen, you would have to be a member of the military, go to basic training, learn to shoot a gun and take an oath to defend that country. Your age would not be an issue with them. But to enjoy the privlages of those countries, there are things you would have to do. Military is only one of them.
Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!
are you kidding.....?!
November 27, 2007 - 18:49 ET by wizardjr"Sweden, Denmark and Finland, whose economies are very competitive and whose social welfare programs are far superior to anything the US has."
Sweden sells a few thousand Volvos a year and cheap scrap lumber as furniture (IKEA). I can't think of any world renowned products from Denmark or anything but Reindeer poop from Finland. I've never heard of any wave of Americans headed to their universities or medical schools.
Their social welfare systems are bankrupt (Finland) or nearly so (the rest of socialist Europe). They have been quietly and regularly reducing benefits, usually by rationing rather than outright stoppage. The personal wealth and quality and size of infrastructure is way below that of America (try to find an air conditioner in summer).
What a crock.....!
go look at a recent NB post
November 27, 2007 - 18:55 ET by professor truthwhich talks about the US being the most competive nation in the world. Look at the other top nations. This is a NB post so if you want to punk your own site, go ahead.
Oh please spare us this
November 27, 2007 - 14:52 ET by dscottOh please spare us this dribble of your self righteous indignation. It was liberals who negatively characterized conservatives in this manner in the first place, now that we call liberals on it, the attempt you make at satire just comes off lame. Let's face it PT, Socialism, the end game of liberal ideology, has done far more harm to the environment than Capitalism ever has. One look at the old Soviet Union or China demonstrates the absence of Socialist concern for the environment.
Aren't you ever sorry Al Gore invented the internet, now we conservatives have a forum to talk back and counter liberal dribble without the muzzle of the MSM. LOL
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
dscott, I never defended the soviet system nor the chinese
November 27, 2007 - 15:02 ET by professor truthsystem so your straw men don't hold water. Post soviet "free market"
"reforms" resulted in an increase of millions of impoverished workers who lost subsidies and their jobs as a result. All of russia's oil was "privatized" and sold off at pennies on the dollar. The result was a large number of instant billionaires in thecountry along with a simultaneous impoverishment of milions. Yeltsin's "democratic reforms" included dissolving the poliburo and unilaterally writing into law "free market " "reforms". This also happened in Iraq when temporary dictator Bremer stopped democratic elections , and wrote into law numerous "directives" which privatized all of Iraq's industries (except oil, which was to determiine immediate uprisings in response). So, Bremer's actions threw thousands of workers into the streets, eliminated subsidies on things like gasoline, and resulted in massive increases of impoverished Iraqis! WHY DO THEY HATE US???
Maybe you should do a
November 27, 2007 - 16:31 ET by dscottMaybe you should do a little reading on the progress of Russia since the 1991 collapse.
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/rs.html
Russia ended 2006 with its eighth straight year of growth, averaging 6.7% annually since the financial crisis of 1998. Although high oil prices and a relatively cheap ruble initially drove this growth, since 2003 consumer demand and, more recently, investment have played a significant role. Over the last five years, fixed capital investments have averaged real gains greater than 10% per year and personal incomes have achieved real gains more than 12% per year. During this time, poverty has declined steadily and the middle class has continued to expand. Russia has also improved its international financial position since the 1998 financial crisis. The federal budget has run surpluses since 2001 and ended 2006 with a surplus of 9% of GDP. Over the past several years, Russia has used its stabilization fund based on oil taxes to prepay all Soviet-era sovereign debt to Paris Club creditors and the IMF.
Boy life must be really bad in Russia since Capitalism came to town! <sarcasm>
Really? you think the Iraqis hate us, I guess you must watch the MSM and believe all the propaganda they spout. Maybe hate is a relative thing, you think they hate us as much as al Qaeda??? <sarcasm> I guess that's why their economy is now just rolling along better than before? I think you need to get out more often to see the rest of the world. Even I periodically read Pravda just to see what perspective they have. Confirmation bias may be a comfortable corner to hold up in, but sooner or later you have to face the real world.
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
Here's another glorious
November 27, 2007 - 17:08 ET by dscottHere's another glorious article on the wealth of the Soviet Union you so thoughtfully considered to exist and claim Yelsin lost through liberalization. http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/russia/articles/20070611.aspx
Hanlon's Razor: Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity. dscott's corollary: The line between malice and stupidity is called depraved indifference.
dscott, is liberal dribble another pseudonym
November 27, 2007 - 15:30 ET by professor truthfor irrefutable facts?? Just asking.
The Computer Illiterate Propagandist is Back!
November 28, 2007 - 02:32 ET by PopularTechYes logging companies clear cut AKA slash and burn the land so they have no more trees to sell and go out of business - good one, did you come up with this logic on your own or did you need Grist? Here are the facts:
Ecology:
- U.S. Forest land area increased from 747 million acres in 1997 to 749 in 2002. (Source)
- Since the 1950s, timber growth has consistently exceeded harvest. (Source)
The Anti "Man-Made" Global Warming Resource
Well Said!
November 27, 2007 - 12:57 ET by mytwocentsWell said, misterbill! He, like, Bush have tried too much to befriend the left and their positions. Adios indeed!
When the subject is Global Warming or Newt
November 27, 2007 - 13:18 ET by Peg C.among others, most of the time I skip right over it. MEGO.
Newt is like a genius 5 yr. old who must constantly have everyone's rapt attention and everything he does is geared towards that end. I've had it with him
Totally agree with those (seems Rush might have been the first one) who argue that the Global Warming movement is all about taxes, power, and bringing the U.S. to its knees. He's saying right now that most on that iceship that sank were eco-warriors. Too bad they didn't sink with it.
Noel
November 27, 2007 - 13:19 ET by Sick-n-Tired"Given my esteem for the former Speaker, and his vast intellect, I would prefer to see some effort on his part to open up the debate on this cornerstone of the global warming myth rather than assisting in keeping it closed."
Noel, perhaps you can pull some strings and contact him in an open letter, or something of the sort, and rationalize with him the importance of opening his mind, and this debate to the facts as opposed to drinking the liberal kool-aid. As we all here know, your last statements are absolutely correct---something our history prof should realize.
"After all, scientific assertions, regardless of how many people believe them, should be able to withstand scrutiny if they are at all relevant.
In fact, this is indeed the basis of science, something that those claiming the debate is over disgracefully misrepresent, and those looking to advance the discussion should advocate rather than squelch."
They're all sounding the same
November 27, 2007 - 20:01 ET by IamTinmanA global warming (and cooling) cycle will occur every day of your life, every year of your existence, and according to the science I was taught, has occured in even longer cycles since before mankind crawled out of the primordial slime. Get real!
In the part of California where I live it's not unusual for the temperature to vary 50 degrees in a day and to be 65 in SanFrancisco and 105 in Walnut Creek which is 30 miles away yet somehow we all manage to survive.
Newt is right in that there are a number of environmental problems we should be addressing:
Our oceans are in trouble from pollution and overfishing.
There is still too much junk in our air.
Preventable Diseases like Malaria still kill hundreds of thousands of children yearly and leave millions of adults weak and unable to care for either the children or themselves.
Global warming if it exists will happen regardless of mankinds efforts to stop it. These other issues and many more are real here and now problems which we can and must address.
IamT
November 27, 2007 - 20:09 ET by Noel SheppardIamT,
Where are you from in NorCal? By this post, I guess East Bay, maybe San Ramon Valley. ns
Noel
November 28, 2007 - 00:03 ET by IamTinmanLiving large in the Shadow of Mt Diablo and trying desperately to convert the heathen, but it's a struggle. Reason and Logic don't seem to work when it comes to injecting reality into the liberal worldview.
IamT
November 28, 2007 - 01:11 ET by Noel SheppardIamT,
Me as well. I mountain bike up that shadow every Sunday. Dan Cook. Are you familiar? ns
hey Noel
November 28, 2007 - 00:11 ET by botgand just as you point out science should be able to withstand scrutiny; journalism should present both sides. What struck me as an underlying bias was that with this video and the Michael Schellenberger in order to be labeled a moderate by Andrew the people had to agree that CO2 is a bad pollutant causing AGW.
GoHunter08
The debate is over. Global
November 28, 2007 - 06:02 ET by ckc1227The debate is over. Global warming is real. Santa Claus told me so.
The debate is over...NOT
November 28, 2007 - 07:05 ET by TomB2004TomB
Here is PROOF that AGW is here!!!
http://www.mobango.com/media_details/1-globalwarming_1/seDWFqX1!sk=/
So there!!!
Santa told me different!! LOL