"[S]cience doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all," says a random climate skeptic the widely used 2005 version of Advanced Placement high school textbook American Government. The text, written by two prominent conservatives, goes on to imply that the cause of climate change is in doubt and that the negative effects of global warming will be balanced by positives. "I just realized from my own knowledge that some of this stuff in the book is just plain wrong," says New Jersey high-school senior Matthew LaClair. He brought his concerns to pro-science think tank Center for Inquiry, which wrote a report [PDF] detailing the book's biases. Publisher Houghton Mifflin says it will review the text and points out that it has, um, improved things in the latest version, in which the above sentence was changed to, "Science doesn't know how bad the greenhouse effect is."
source: Associated Press, Friends of the Earth
Cautious optimism for Copenhagen deal as Barcelona climate talks end
Another coal plant bites the dust
Barcelona outcome: White House strategy is plea for more time
Comments
View as Flat
Delay And Deny Posted 10:23 am
09 Apr 2008
Instead of arguing polemic about CO2 and warming, how about we put some simply science experiments in the book so they can prove it for themselves.
This would be the assignment: Design a simple experiment to show that increased global temperatures are dependent on increased levels of CO2 generated by people. You may not use computer simulations, only things in nature.
What's that?
No such experiment has been done before?
Mmmm...I thought so...
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 11:29 am
09 Apr 2008
No such experiment has been done before?
Mmmm...I thought so...
Actually, you're mistaken. We had no world-wide computer simulations back in the 70's or 80's, but yet we still had evidence to back it (or did ya think that we've always had fast, speedy, and internet-capable computers? What? Were ya born in 1996 or somethin'?)
What, ya thought we just suddenly decided one day that CO2 was the problem and then relied solely on computer simulations to confirm it?
Much research was done in forestry, soils, marine biology, climatology, and in other fields long before we began the world-wide computer simulations (or even had the means to do so).
In other words, the computer simulations were used to back-up and strengthen what had already been confirmed.
On another note, a godd school experiment to try with this would be to measure the CO2 increases in actual greenhouse, and how much the temperature changed with the increase. Of course, it's not nearly that simple on a world-wide system, but it gets the general point across.
I remember when we did this back in fourth grade science class (which was before my school even had a computer lab, the internet was unheard of, and most computers used floppy disks)
Permalink
NSaggie Posted 12:56 pm
09 Apr 2008
Maybe a better experiment is to determine how much is attributable?
Then again, we already have a planet that we're experimenting with. Geo-engineering 100.
Permalink
Delay And Deny Posted 1:38 pm
09 Apr 2008
We had no world-wide computer simulations back in the 70's or 80's...
So what were these "experiments" then? Are they available online? through Scholar?
In fact, as I remember, the whole "global warming" scare started as early as 1965 with President Johnson's PSAC people putting out the alarm.
What scientific papers was this based on? You said there were no simulations or models back then...
In other words, the computer simulations were used to back-up and strengthen what had already been confirmed.
There's that again. No need to do any work. It's "already proved". Why do "climate scientists" even get up in the morning. It's all decided years ago!
Seriously, when I did a Google search and excluded the words "computer" and "model" the number of Al Gore's 1069 scientific papers suddenly dwindled to less than 100 (already posted on Grist). You'd think there would be continuous work in the real world to keep the models true to their word.
The only real world investigations that I've been aware of are the ice core samples...which have shown that the Earth has warmed time and time again.
On another note, a godd school experiment to try with this would be to measure the CO2 increases in actual greenhouse
Brings up a thought...tagging. In addition to cleaning, capping, trading and reducing, we should figure out how to tag manmade CO2 so that when some of it does get up in the atmosphere we do know it's ours (and how much of it). We wouldn't have to do all of it I think (use the Mark Recapture method), to give us a good idea of the population dynamics of CO2 natural versus manmade.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 1:40 pm
09 Apr 2008
Still, it was fun, and did peak our interests.
Now, I've heard, many schools actually have their own monitoring programs, where they actually have stations on the roof or in the gardens that monitor all types of pollution levels and then the students report the levels into an online reporting system.
Permalink
Tasermons Partner Posted 2:01 pm
09 Apr 2008
Some are, others are still available via papers.
You said there were no simulations or models back then...
No, I said there were no world-wide computer simulations.
Why do "climate scientists" even get up in the morning. It's all decided years ago!
There's still more 'bout the possible changes that we don't know. Also, differences in human activity (such as sudden increase in deforestation, pollution, etc.) may change the models, so it's important to keep on top.
For example, the increased use of, and refining of, ethanol, has recently needed to be factored into some models.
But essentially, yes. It was all decided years ago.
But since some people weren't experts aren't the subject, more data needed to be collected and the concept strengthened in order for average joe to get an good idea of what was goin' on.
The only real world investigations that I've been aware of are the ice core samples...which have shown that the Earth has warmed time and time again.
Ah, but ya see, the ice cores also showed that the typical warming period took hundreds, and often thousands, of years in order to raise the average temperature a few degrees. The only exceptions were when catastrophic geological or impact events occurred.
Yet, the recent temperature increases have occured in a matter of decades, not centuries or millenium.
Ice core samples also revealed that cold periods tend to last much longer than warming periods, with typical ice ages lasting in the range of 80 to 90 thousand years, followed by a warming period of typically 10 to 20 thousand years, usually closer to 10.
Under those circumstances, without human interference, it's actually likely that the Earth should've cooled a fraction of a degree over the past few decades, not increased in temperature by several degrees.
In addition to cleaning, capping, trading and reducing, we should figure out how to tag manmade CO2 so that when some of it does get up in the atmosphere we do know it's ours (and how much of it).
Though we obviously can't track everythin', we have actually been tracking the amount in general. Since we know what the historical amount was before large-scale human interference (thanks to tree, soil, ice, and water samples), we can infer, based on current levels, how much of the additional GHGs are ours.
Also haveta factor in how human activities such as deforestation, desertification, wetlands destruction, suburban sprawl, and urban heat islands factor in to the increase, as well as the removal of natural filters (such as trees, wetlands, coral reefs) for GHGs has effected the amount.
Permalink
elbarto Posted 2:32 pm
09 Apr 2008
Permalink
amazingdrx Posted 3:40 pm
09 Apr 2008
Text books, we write those in texas. Cause we're smart. No child left behind, Neil has to make a livin'.
It's a completely bushwacked culture. Rove writes the text books.
Permalink
rsmith02 Posted 11:04 am
10 Apr 2008
Remember this is a politics, not a science textbook (no cynics, they are not the same thing perhaps excepting Pat Michaels' advocacy science).
There's actually a simple experiment using a ball-sized "model earth" taking place at Wesleyan University at the moment just very simply looking at CO2 with a constant energy input and seeing what temperatures do. We'll see what it shows.
Permalink
heatherbrie Posted 12:37 am
15 Apr 2008
Permalink
catladylovescats Posted 2:01 am
15 Apr 2008
catladylovescats
Permalink
catladylovescats Posted 2:03 am
15 Apr 2008
Permalink