Wednesday, February 1, 2012

Global Warming Heats Up in the Classroom

Global Warming Heats Up In The Classroom

by Gary Isbell

The debate over global warming is now entering the classroom and its proponents are alarmed. It seems the “dogma” of the existence of global warming is running into problems as boards of education in several states have established a standard that requires the presentation of climate change “denial” as a valid scientific position. Legislators in other states have introduced bills that require equal time for climate change skeptics’ views in the classroom. With new national science standards from kindergarten through twelfth grade due by the end of 2012, we can expect to see a heated debate over climate change appear more often in court and in the classroom.

The National Center for Science Education’s [NCSE] is challenging such restrictions. It seems anyone who so much as questions the reality of man-made climate change is in a psychological state of “denial” of established science. The Center’s education initiative [1] seeks to impose the climate change agenda upon our school children leaving no room for scientific method or debate.

In the opinion of the NCSE, “there is virtually unanimous scientific agreement about climate change.” What is this claim founded upon and who are the renowned scientists that signed on to this statement? It seems NCSE has simply dismissed all those who disagree with climate change theory.

Note that no figure of the percentage of scientists in agreement is given, perhaps because they deem the number to be so insignificant. A simple exaggerated statement suffices to provide all the emotional arguments to justify their agenda.

An excellent article in the Wall Street Journal, titled “No Need to Panic About Global Warming” claims “there’s no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to ‘decarbonize’ the world’s economy.”[2] It clearly states, that in fact a growing number of distinguished scientists and engineers do not agree that drastic actions on global warming are required and that CO2 is not only, not a pollutant, but it is a key component of our biosphere’s life cycle.

Happily, the climate change program is finding a substantial amount of resistance among students across the country as well. A poll conducted last November by the National Science Teachers Association [NSTA],[3] found that 82 percent of students surveyed demonstrated skepticism regarding climate change and 26 percent of teachers’ administrators showed the same tendency.

Nevertheless, climate change advocates in education keep repeating the same old slogans. With a persistence almost worthy of admiration, one might conclude that some of these educators are following the advice of Robespierre: The secret of freedom lies in educating people, whereas the secret of tyranny is in keeping them ignorant.

1 comment:

  1. I think it's just difficult to believe that climate change could "end the world" as we know it (see & Reasonable estimates for temp. increase are about 3 C at the high end of this century, i.e., 90 years from now, which wouldn't be good but it's hardly the end of the world. Same with rising sea levels: reasonable prediction suggest a rise by the end of the century that will be more than manageable.

    More to the point, if you're really worried about the end of the world, it can easily happen, and not in 90 years but in less than 90 minutes. In 30 minutes in fact.

    20 years after the fall of the U.S.S.R. and the end of the cold war, 1000s of multi-megaton thermonuclear weapons remain on high alert. The chances of an accidental small or all out massive nuclear exchange are far from zero and we've had several very close calls w/in the last 50 years, the most serious in 1994 when Yeltsin actually had to open his nuclear football to enter launch release codes before they figured out that the missile their early warning radar was tracking was carrying a weather station into space.

    Today, the U.S. & Russia have a combined strategic nuclear force of about 3000 on each side, not counting reserves after a first strike or retaliation. An attack with just two 1-megaton nuclear warheads would unleash explosive power equivalent to that caused by all the bombs used during World War II. Today, there's over 6000 multi-megaton weapons on high alert, and most of these weapons are at least 1-2 megton, many are in the 5-10 megaton range (designed to obliterate large cities, e.g., NYC, Chicago, etc., and kill 10 million people in quarter of a second). works through the consequences of even a small exchange. Where as climate change predicts, at worst, a 2-3 C rise in global temp. over the coming century, a small nuclear exchange would drop global temps of at least that w/in 24 hours. An out all exchange would drop temps by up to 10 C. Basically, this will be a man made ice-age, and it would only take a few hours to create it, killing 100s of millions in the process and ending both civilization and history w/in the same time frame. Oh, and radioactive fallout would blanket much of the planet.

    Steven Starr, senior scientist with Physicians for Social Responsibility, said research makes clear the environmental consequences of a U.S.-Russian nuclear war: “If these weapons are detonated in the large cities of either of their nations, they will cause such catastrophic damage to the global environment that the Earth will become virtually uninhabitable for most humans and many other complex forms of life.” And it would only take 24 hours to create these conditions.

    Climate change has nothing on accidental or deliberate nuclear war.

    Why haven't we had an accidental exchange? We've been lucky, many times, but if you keep doing something dangerous, sooner or later, your luck runs out. We need to de-alert these massive weapon systems now. We need serious disarmament now. For those of us old enough to remember the cold war days . . . climate change is a problem but hardly the end of the world . . .