If it is any wonder why several young adults and minors are filing federal and state lawsuits to promote the legal theory that government is failing in its duties to protect “Nature’s Trust”, the reasons are only a few clicks away. Just search “children” and “climate change” and enjoy the tour of sites dedicated to teaching children about the dangers of global warming climate change. You’ll have the pleasure of finding sites that not only discuss the “facts” about how man’s contribution to “greenhouse” gases, through CO2 emissions, is a leading factor in a warming planet but sites that also detail the immense impact that warming is already having on the planet and the catastrophes that are coming in the near future. It won’t take long to realize that through the proficient efforts of climate change activists, as well as government agencies, children are getting a fine education in how the world is going to end at the hands of mankind.
But, before you look for yourself, let me provide just a few of examples. From the Oregon nonprofit, Our Children’s Trust, whose director, Julia Olson is also serving as plaintiff’s counsel in a majority of the lawsuits mentioned above, comes the following excerpt –
The most basic role of a government is to protect its citizens from dangers too large and complex for individuals to deal with on their own. Global warming is just such a danger. Any legitimate government has a duty to protect the air, the water, and all the other natural systems that sustain its people. Everyone has a right to a livable environment — the young and the old, the powerful and the voiceless, present generations and those not yet born — but runaway climate change threatens us all.
Earth’s climate has passed through many warm and cold phases over many millions of years, but the carbon added to the atmosphere by humans during the past two centuries has changed everything. Earth’s carbon cycle has been thrown out of balance: receding glaciers, hotter summers, and more frequent natural disasters are just a few of the early symptoms.
Granted, the above website is not directly geared towards children. It does however serve as an advocate for those children who have filed suit against the states of California, Colorado, Washington, et al, and the federal government. (It should be noted that Olson is also an adjunct professor at the University of Oregon Law School, teaching environmental courses. And, the same scholar who formulated the legal theory under which Olson’s young clients are suing the government, Professor Mary Christina Wood, is the founder and director of the University of Oregon School of Law Environmental and Natural Resources Law Program.)
Considering that the above example is geared a bit more towards the litigious young, their parents, and mentors, let’s look at another website which directs its environmental education toward a younger crowd. Tiki the Penguin, who is trying to make a kinder world for everyone at tiki.oneworld.net, provides our youth with useful information about climate change. Specifically, Tiki says –
Yes, climate change is real… and very unfair!
But you or your child may ask if climate change really is real. And, if so, why is it so unfair. If you do, Tiki has an answer for you –
Sea levels are rising. Temperatures are rising, especially in the Arctic and Antarctic. Glaciers on other mountains of the world are melting very fast — especially in the Himalayas. Animals and plants which like warmer conditions are moving further north and south. Yes, it’s happening all right.
The world is hotting up. And I’m sorry to say it’s all people’s fault.
But it’s not everyone that’s doing it. Mostly it’s people in rich countries — North America, Europe and Australia. They are the ones with energy-hungry lifestyles which guzzle fossil fuels. Poor people like those in most African countries, Asia and Latin America can’t afford to travel all over the place in cars and planes, they don’t have heating or air conditioning in their homes or eat fancy food. Many don’t even have anything more to live in than a one-room shack with no toilet, no kitchen, no running water. These people are not the ones causing global warming. Yet they are the ones who suffer most from climate change caused by the rich. It’s not fair, is it?
Tiki also has a little something to say about those who don’t believe that the climate is changing or that it is a monumental crisis –
Many of the people who claim climate change is not happening are those who use lots of fuel, who make things like cars that use lots of fuel, or actually get the fuel out of the earth: that’s heavy industry, carmakers and the oil, gas and coal companies. This is what people call ‘vested interest’. These are people who depend on other people using lots of fuel if they are to continue making money. It’s not surprising that they don’t think there is any climate change. But it doesn’t make them right!
You may think that Tiki is just a climate change zealot from the far fringes of the environmental movement. Alas no, Tiki is a penguin but, OneWorld Network, which created the Tiki character, is a group committed to global justice and represents a network of non-governmental organizations.
Lest you think that you will have to search far and wide to find the type of quality youth indoctrination like that offered by Tiki, please note the following example. From our very own government, at the EPA’s website children can learn the basics of global warming under the headline of -
The Earth’s climate is changing, and people’s activities are the main cause.
Our world is always changing. Look out your window long enough, and you might see the weather change. Look even longer, and you’ll see the seasons change. The Earth’s climate is changing, too, but in ways that you can’t easily see.
The Earth is getting warmer because people are adding heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere, mainly by burning fossil fuels. These gases are called greenhouse gases. Warmer temperatures are causing other changes around the world, such as melting glaciers and stronger storms. These changes are happening because the Earth’s air, water, and land are all linked to the climate. The Earth’s climate has changed before, but this time is different. People are causing these changes, which are bigger and happening faster than any climate changes that modern society has ever seen before.
The EPA is a bit conservative in its estimations of the current impact of climate change and the future ramifications. It generally points to weather and climate events of the past 30 years to suggest that any extremes in these events are linked to global climate change. The EPA then goes on to claim that the climate and the environment will worsen if climate change is not addressed. To its credit, the EPA does offer a chance for children to think like scientists. To do so, the agency provides a resource that will aid in reinforcing any child’s cognitive bias towards the approved method of climate change thought with the following introduction –
Think Like a Scientist
Uncover the cause of today’s global climate change.
Did you know that thousands of measurements of the Earth’s air, water, and land are taken every day? These measurements come from weather stations, airplanes, ships, satellites, and many other sources all around the globe. Taken all together, these measurements and other observations tell us that the Earth’s climate is warming, people are the main cause, and impacts on society and the environment are already happening.
You may not consider any of the above to be noteworthy. After all, the science is settled, is it not? Yet, perhaps you, like me, wish for your child to engage in a bit more critical thinking when it comes to the issues that make up the climate change debate. The current trend in climate change outreach is to teach our children what to think or believe about this issue and much of it is dressed in activism. It attempts to give the youth the impression that they are changing things if they act as they have been instructed. However, children like those currently suing our government may not realize until it’s too late that they have acted to abandon their own futures and the futures of their children by ceding even control over the air they breathe to government bodies – all in the effort to preserve “Nature’s Trust.” That is not teaching them well, that is teaching them how to become slaves.
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
Global warming deniers are a strange bunch. They have no problem with science when it benefits them (medical care), they don’t question the 99.9% of Dr.s’ and PhD’s who say “unhealthy lifestyles shorten your life”, but if 99.9% of those who have spent their lives studying the Earth’s climate say “increased man-made CO2 levels are causing global temp increases”……well, that is too much…..”I am NOT going to change the way I live…..and I don’t care that it will impact future generations”.
I appreciate the comment though I don’t see what it actually has to do with the article. Did I say I denied that the climate may be changing? Don’t think I did. Did I say in any absolute terms that CO2 emissions from human activities may contribute to warming? Nope.
But since you have invited my thoughts on the matter, you may benefit from knowing that I question the methods for measuring historic levels of atmospheric CO2. I question the methods for obtaining global temperature both currently and by proxy for past periods. I question whether science can account for all sources of global CO2 emissions, both natural and manmade. I question whether increases in CO2 in the atmosphere are, in all cases, a cause for increasing temperature or a result from those increases. I question whether science can conclusively demonstrate that recent warming varies from past interglacial period warming. I question whether computer modeling can predict past, present, and future climate characteristics when the system is so complex and so much is still unknown. Finally, I question what the supposed future consequences of climate change may be.
You may be comfortable with the concept of allowing political bodies to make dramatic changes in how humans live based on what seems to me to be an incomplete science. You may even be comfortable with the trends in how children are instructed to think about this issue. You might find it useful to read the thoughts and analysis of more than just those who believe in anthropogenic climate change and allow yourself to ask questions as well. I know it has helped me. I have read much on both sides of this argument and have been left with these questions, just imagine how much actual thinking you might do if you too took the opportunity to study the other side of the issue.
One last thought, on your statement, …”99.9% of those who have spent their lives studying the Earth’s climate say ‘increased man-made CO2 levels are causing global temp increases.’” Really? Please provide proof of this statement.
Ah, science and all that stuff. I don’t think you should change your way of living. Current thinking is that if climate change is occurring it may be the result of the increased sun burst and EPA doesn’t want to hear about it. But who knows, climate change has been occurring for the last 15,000 years. Glaciers have been receding, ice packs decreasing, etc. etc. All that has happened since the last great ice age. I find it amusing that man thinks he is so important that we leave carbon footprints and hair spray is making a hole in the atmosphere (has it closed since we changed chemicals?) and we are destroying the earth with gaseous emissions. The rotation axis is off center from the last earthquake but that’s no problem. Of course the one in Chile knock the rotation off a little and how many other earthquakes have knocked the rotation off from its original axis. Then that big splash in the Gulf of Mexico by a big meteor and good old west Texas that was once an ocean bottom dried up and became dessert. None of that stuff would have any thing to do with this problem of climate change. It is just we human beings and our destructive ways.
Thanks for the comment, westTexas –
But it is all because of us, don’t you know, the scientists told us so.
By Doyle Rice, USA TODAY
Forget the four out of five dentists who recommend Trident…. Try the 97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.
This data comes from a new survey out this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
The study found that 97 percent of scientific experts agree that climate change is “very likely” caused mainly by human activity.
The report is based on questions posed to 1,372 scientists. Nearly all the experts agreed that it is “very likely that anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for most of the unequivocal warming of the Earth’s average global temperature in the second half of the twentieth century.”
Click here for an interactive graphic that shows how global warming occurs.
As for the 3 percent of scientists who remain unconvinced, the study found their average expertise is far below that of their colleagues, as measured by publication and citation rates.
In the study, the authors wrote: “This extensive analysis of the mainstream versus skeptical/contrarian researchers suggests a strong role for considering expert credibility in the relative weight of and attention to these groups of researchers in future discussions in media, policy, and public forums regarding anthropogenic climate change.”
The study authors were William R.L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold and Stephen H. Schneider.
The report comes as the Earth continues to sizzle in 2010. So far, through May, 2010 is the warmest year ever recorded, according to the National Climatic Data Center.
Okay, I’ll go with that, although you suggested 99.9% who have studied the science, etc. So let’s look at evidence you used to support your statement. From the abstract of the survey mentioned in the USA today article we learn –
“Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.”
Not to be nitpicky, but this suggests that the study is based on a subset of scientists who study climate science. This particular feature of the study indicates that it is not all climate scientists or even those scientists who may be able to address climate related issues scientifically because of their work in related fields, such as geosciences.
Okay, so your evidence is not based on a survey of the entire universe of scientists in the field nor is it a particularly sound statistical sample. But let’s just say that the sample is significant and that we can derive support for the conclusion made in the line from the article that states “…97 out of 100 scientists that believe in man-made climate change.”
But wait, this sample of 1,372 scientists is not what the percentage was based on is it? There was also a selection criteria applied to the sample to determine which should be included in the study. Though I am sure the fine scientists who authored the study wouldn’t succumb to subjectivity in developing their selection criteria, the criteria may inherently disallow both supporting and opposing views from less well published scientists to be considered. For instance, a scientist with strong opposing views and expertise in the field may not make it into the study if she were relatively unpublished. Such subjectivity makes the resulting percentage rather meaningless.
Also on the sample size versus the percentages used in the article – from the Supporting Information on the study, the survey did in fact include approximately 1,372. Of the initial 1,372, approximately 900 were generally in agreement with the IPCC. The remainder, approximately 470 scientists, were unconvinced by the evidence. The percentage relative to the SI data is that 66% were in support, 34% opposed. (I’ve used “approximately” in these cases because the SI data on the number of scientists found on either side of the issue did not add up to the total number of scientists claimed to be the subject of the survey). But following the use of selection criteria, the authors derived a ratio of 97:3 for and against. Of note, the SI also indicates that the sample used in the survey was selected from publications or instances where scientists voiced their support or opposition over time – interestingly going only as far back as 2006 in collecting samples of supporting positions and all the way back to 1992 for positions in opposition. This might cause one to wonder why there is a disparity in the timeline of sampling for instances of support and opposition.
I’ll leave it there and turn it back to you – does being presented with these facts about the evidence you used to prove your statement cause you to want question that evidence any further? If it does, then perhaps you will understand the mechanism behind why I and many others do not unconditionally accept scientific proposals like the “consensus” regarding climate change.
If it doesn’t then I believe we have little else to discuss.
First off, I did not say “99.9% who have studied the science”, I said, as the study shows, all but a tiny percentage (2%) of CLIMATE SCIENTIST (those who have spent their time devoted to the study of climate) agree that man-made CO2 is causing the rise in world-wide temps in this and the last century.
RDS said: “Also on the sample size versus the percentages used in the article – from the Supporting Information on the study, the survey did in fact include approximately 1,372. Of the initial 1,372, approximately 900 were generally in agreement with the IPCC. The remainder, approximately 470 scientists, were unconvinced by the evidence.”
Wrong wrong and wrong. The sample size was reduced to 908 expert climate scientist who have published more than 20 peer-reviewed papers:
The UE (unconvinced by evidence) group comprises only 2% of the top 50 climate researchers as ranked by expertise (number of climate publications), 3% of researchers of the top 100, and 2.5% of the top 200, excluding researchers present in both groups (Materials and Methods). This result closely agrees with expert surveys, indicating that ≈97% of self-identified actively publishing climate scientists agree with the tenets of ACC (2). Furthermore, this finding complements direct polling of the climate researcher community, which yields qualitative and self-reported researcher expertise (2). Our findings capture the added dimension of the distribution of researcher expertise, quantify agreement among the highest expertise climate researchers, and provide an independent assessment of level of scientific consensus concerning ACC. In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group (Fig. 1). Mean expertise of the UE group was around half (60 publications) that of the CE group (119 publications; Mann–Whitney U test: W = 57,020; P < 10−14), as was median expertise (UE = 34 publications; CE = 84 publications). Furthermore, researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group, as opposed to less than 10% of the CE group. This indicates that the bulk of UE researchers on the most prominent multisignatory statements about climate change have not published extensively in the peer-reviewed climate literature.
http://www.pnas.org/content/107/27/12107.full
——————————————————
Again, you will utilize science when it favors your ideology, disregard when it does not. The science is clear, the results of those studying it are in.
Tell me, what other 97% odds do you bet against?
I guess I should simply thank you for schooling me so excellently, Conned. Your expert copy and paste skills have proven that in no way could there be any subjectivity in the author’s study when selecting climate scientists to include in their study. Additionally, I guess I am “Wrong, Wrong, Wrong” for pointing out how the article from the USA Today that you used as evidence to support a claim, you either did or didn’t make depending on how one might read your posts, is misleading in its statement that 97 out of 100 scientists agree, blah, blah, blah.
But who am I but an ideological simpleton to disregard the “science” of this esteemed study showing that almost everyone who mattered to the authors believes in ACC. One of the two of us is hopeless. I guess I’ll let it be me this time so that you won’t have to spill any more of your precious obtuseness all over the thread.
PS…..all science is “incomplete”, both what you utilize and that which you deny.
Now you’re just being irksome, unless you truly don’t understand the context in which the statement was made.
No, the idea of the scientific method is that theory is accepted when it is tested and passes, tossed when it fails. It is ALWAYS incomplete since we do not have full knowledge of the universe.
RDS said: “But who am I but an ideological simpleton to disregard the “science” of this esteemed study showing that almost everyone who mattered to the authors believes in ACC.”
Your argument is that children should question the science behind global warming, but yet when it is shown to you that only 2% of climate scientist (those who ARE expert in their peer-reviewed field) are UNDECIDED by the evidence (note: not rejecting it, but undecided as to the cause of global warming), you still can’t bring yourself to even accept this survey of scientist by scientists……….which you had NO IDEA that this survey even existed. It was fairly big news when it came out….and I don’t even follow it all that closely (hence my 2% error when speaking from memory).
You can label yourself a simpleton if you wish, but to reject the science and even a survey of the scientists producing the studies, is more ignorance than being “simple”.
Crap, I really didn’t want to say anything else but, I think it’s worth saying that your last jewel of a comment demonstrates how ridiculous you really are. Unless you purposely write idiocy and pretend not to comprehend the comments you read – (you, see my last comment was dripping sarcasm, perhaps you didn’t notice because there wasn’t a “/sarc” tag). Maybe you’re a very lonely individual and arguing just for the sake of it makes you feel like you have friends.
Let’s start here – yes, I argued that children should be taught to think critically, which would include questioning the science of ACC. Why then should I not also question the very evidence you provided to 1) support your statements and, 2) show that ACC is real – evidence that is debatably subjective for reasons I pointed out? Oh, I see – what you’re saying is, “Looky here, this study shows that a supermajority of (peer-reviewed, socially acceptable, toeing the line) climate scientists say ACC is supported by the evidence, so give it up already and teach your children to obey.” Maybe we should also guillotine the other 2% of scientists who don’t accept ACC, or who are “unconvinced”, or who don’t toe the line. Then when 100% all agree, I wouldn’t have a reason to question it at all.
Perhaps the problem lies with you. You see you have used a combination of logical fallacies to supposedly prove some point, I guess that ACC is real and shouldn’t be questioned, oh and that I am a climate change denier too it seems.
The first fallacy you commit and, I guess so have the study’s authors, comes in this form – “Scientists who are experts in the field of climate science publish X number of peer-reviewed papers, our study only includes scientists who have publish X number of peer-papers because they are experts.” Recognize this form of argument from anywhere? I’ll answer for you so you (please God) don’t have to respond again. It’s called a circular argument.
The next fallacy is simply an appeal to authority, which relies on the invalid conclusion of your first argument – “Ninety-eight percent of scientists in the field of climate science agree that ACC is real, these scientists are experts, therefore, ACC is real.”
You expect me to accept this line of logic because to do otherwise means I am an ideological hack? Oh, wait…don’t bother answering, I can’t take anymore. Now, since I have pointed to what appears to be a problem with your statement you’re going to be tempted to say something else about how I am a denier or just ignorant. Or you’ll try to say your argument isn’t anything like how I have portrayed it. Or you’ll engage in more mind reading to tell me what I have or haven’t read on the topic. Let me save you the trouble and point you to my very first response to you on this thread, before you go and try to sound even sillier than you do now.
The first fallacy you commit and, I guess so have the study’s authors, comes in this form – “Scientists who are experts in the field of climate science publish X number of peer-reviewed papers, our study only includes scientists who have publish X number of peer-papers because they are experts.” Recognize this form of argument from anywhere? I’ll answer for you so you (please God) don’t have to respond again. It’s called a circular argument.
Lemme get this, peer-review is invalid….because experts in the same field…..testing the hypothesis of other experts…….is a “circular argument”?
Wow! you have just destroyed ALL research science with ONE POSTING in a CONSERVATIVE FORUM!
CONGRATULATIONS!……..
You are absolutely correct, we should not have experts in one field examining theories within the same field, it should be done by non-experts……..those from other fields of study!
Brilliant!
The next fallacy is simply an appeal to authority, which relies on the invalid conclusion of your first argument – “Ninety-eight percent of scientists in the field of climate science agree that ACC is real, these scientists are experts, therefore, ACC is real.”
“Real”…..no dear……..theory……accepted theory…….this is science we are talking about, not absolutes…..not even the scientists are absolute. But to deny that: 1) Increases in CO2 levels that direct correlate to global temp increases for the last 500K years, and 2) CO2 levels have been increasing over the last 100 years directly due to man-made sources reaching levels greater than those measured from the last 500K years…..is the ultimate in hiding your head in the sand.
Here is the deal, lets say I’m wrong. That decreasing our use of fossil fuels doesn’t change anything, that becoming more efficient and decreasing our dependence on fossil fuels doesn’t reduce atmospheric CO2. What then? We are better prepared for the eventual depletion of oil and gas? The HORROR!
But…
Lets say you are wrong, that we don’t curb our use and world temps go much higher, creating huge land areas unsuitable for life…..with an increasing population…..what then?
If you think your bet on the 2% is the smart move, well then, there you are.
I’m sure you believe you know more than they do.
I find it hard to see where RDS is demonstrating “ignorance” by simply deconstructing your argument, Neoconned. Furthermore, he never said he rejected the science; he suggested that we should question the science. The study you cite, which I have not read, although I appreciate your cutting and pasting, and will probably not read, appears flawed from the outset because the sample is clearly hand picked. Regardless, simply because a group of published environmental scientists thinks it’s so, does not make it so. What I believe about global warming is irrelevant, but I am certain that I, and my children, should always question authority and seek to find answers on our own from a variety of sources and not simply one article, in one publication, at any given time.
I would expect any independently minded individual to draw his or her conclusions about any topic after thorough investigation. To accuse RDS of rejecting theories of climate change simply because he doesn’t agree with your single source of evidence is, in itself, a very narrow approach, not to mention presumptive.
With regard to the initial blog about educating chidren, I do think that Tiki is an example of some pretty strong propaganda aimed at the most impressionable part of society. What will our children have beaten in their heads next? Do you want your child to tell you that you are a murderous human being because you drive a car? Berate the neighbors for not recycling?
Maybe we should all just hold our breath so as not to contribute any additional CO2 into the environment.
I would expect any independently minded individual to draw his or her conclusions about any topic after thorough investigation.
Um, RDS did not even know about the survey of scientists……but then again….he is able to draw firm conclusions based on what he has investigated…limited as it may be……..and in opposition to experts…..who probably have it wrong…..all 97% of them.
I mean…..one man’s expert….should be evaluated…..by someone outside of that particular field of study……right?
100% of Al Gores believe in ACC ergo ACC exists. Is this a true statement? Have I tainted the survey by only choosing only 1 Al Gore. Does Al Gore really believe in ACC or is it a business scam to drive up share values in his Carbon Trading entities.
I watched Al Gore’s “An Inconvenient Truth” and I know it was mandatory fare in my children’s Social Studies, English, and Science Classes. I had already begun to harbour doubts about ACC and this film literally shook me. However, after a day’s contemplation I realized that this was Al Gore and I had already witnessed him lying his face off about other issues. That is when I started looking for information that showed indeed that Mr. Gore took many liberities with the themes of his film. This search for truth revealed a whole world of suppressed views and opinions.
A great deal of ACC adherents draw their support from the IPCC reports. The IPCC is a self-culling political body where dissenting voices leave in frustration.
From the East Anglia information dump we witnessed how controlled the information is and how few people are involved in the IPCC procedure.
Scientific consensus is an oxymoron and like oil and water, science and politics don’t mix very well. I have my doubts about ACC and it would take a lot more than surveys and anecdotal evidence to convince me otherwise.
Thanks for the comment on the thread, Klyph. I agree that consensus does little to convince me that the proponents of ACC have established their case.