Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[FordGT90Concept]

1) Yes, climate is always changing.
2) I don't know. Surely there are human contributions involved but I can't definitively say those contributions are solely nor mostly to blame.
4) I said man has undeniably contributed to CO2 rising levels. See #2 for why I don't/won't go further than that.
5) "Versus?" @silkstone said "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate." That's not true because of CH4. Both are greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic warming (should it be occurring) are a combination of the two (as well as about a dozen other factors).


I like to not leave a footprint so I am of the mind that the atmospheric conditions of 1700 are preferable to the conditions of today. Anything that moves the composition of the air towards what they were in 1700 is a good thing in my mind. I don't care about the squabbles of "global climate change," I look at CH4 being more than double what it was just 300 years ago and I say "that's a problem." I look at CO2 and reach a similar conclusion (albeit not as alarmed):

I look at cloud information saying there wasn't cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City before man took to the sky and today, there are cirrus clouds present over that airspace 60% of the time. These are obvious problems and we should be course correcting for them. Whether or not "climate change" is correlated or not matters not to me. At the same time, I caution that reducing CO2 emissions should not come with an increase in CH4 (which is the current trend). They all need to be addressed, simultaneously.


The spike in CH4 and CO2 in the graphs I've posted are undeniably due to human activity. There is no other plausible explanation. Again, I won't explicitly tie those jumps to climate. Climate is far too complex and there are far too many questions lingering to reach that conclusion at this point.

 

[xfia]

I said I'd stop responding to this thread, but at this point I'm frustrated at the rather crap level of consistency that I'm seeing here.

From the 28th page of this discussion:


From the 35th page of this discussion:






If I didn't know better, I'd say that somebody had slipped me the brown acid. In one instance I argue that climate change is a thing, and that man needs to do something about it. I'm then told that climate change is BS, and it'd occur completely without man.

In less than 10 pages of discussion the person who told me this has now decided that population control and genocide is our best solution.

WTF?


I couldn't make this s*** up if I tried. So tell me now, what's the logic? I haven't seen a single fact presented here that should turn somebody denying relevance into somebody calling for murders on the order of death camps. I haven't seen any justification for further shrinking of the birth rate, especially not justification in large 1st world countries where the birth rate is already surprisingly low. I haven't seen any justification for killing all life to make the temperature more stable (releasing radical chemicals doesn't just kill humans, those radicals damage DNA).

Can you say heel-turn into insanity? Can you say bat-s*** crazy? Most importantly, can you say unstable person who shouldn't be allowed to play with a soup spoon, because they might decide that the person eating across from them is going to steal their food and thus deserves to be murdered? The proposed solution is to "fix" things by introducing a completely unknown element into a complex system, that's toxic to a large portion of the system, and hope that fixes things. This is either the plot of a B sci-fi movie, or insanity and hubris that hasn't been rivaled in the course of human history. I can't decide which, but listening to it now is both frightening and sheds a weird light on the previously reasonable discussion.


Edit:


?

Genetic modification is a fundamental part of agriculture. Those orange carrots, they're the product of selective breeding. Selective breeding is modifying the genetic makeup of an organism based upon desired outcome, via controlled breeding.

Do you like wheat, corn, or bananas? You're chowing down on items bred for specific traits for generations. In the case of bananas we've actually gotten to the point where consumer bananas are all clones, to the point where we can no longer grow bananas from seeds. Sci-show did an excellent job covering the topic on youtube,

Best yet, do you know why India has the population it does today? It sure as hell isn't because of its food output. Look up Norman Borlaug. By introducing hybridized crops into the third world he save millions, if not billions, from death by starvation.

Believing that Monsanto's scientific modification of genes is anything new is hubris. The methodology may be new, but humanity has been genetically modifying its animals and plant since the inception of agriculture. If that's somehow impossible to see, tell me how a modern day cow would have fared a few hundred years ago? It didn't, cows were selectively bred from Aurochs.


Believe that GMO is bad, but if you decide that your backwards belief means that people should starve you are a monster. There's a special place in hell for you, right next to Tantalus.

I know the story of the banana..
Monsanto practice kills and is proven to do so.. they sell seeds to farmers and those seeds are made to work with Round Up. The worst pesticide ever that harms humans bees and the earth itself.
If im going to hell for wanting healthy change in the world then I gladly go to the light of flames and watch from above into the depths at those who thought they universally understood everything.

 

[silkstone]

Compare:

"The solutions" are not "the same." Earth already has an extremely effective tool for dealing with CO2; it does not for CH4.

"Methane is 20 times more effective in trapping heat in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide over a 100-year period"

I'm not sure how that statement is meant to make any sense at all! Very dodgy trying to credit the source of the statement to Nasa too!

I'm not sure what I am meant to be seeing in the comparison. Alaska emissions of CH4? You have Sarah Palin up there, right, and she does talk a lot (. . .) that could account for 50% of the increase in CH4 emissions during that period.

If you look into the Chemistry/Physics of the GH effect, you will see that the additional energy retained/absorbed due to methane is around 1/3 of that due to increased CO2 in the atmosphere.

This thread really highlights the point that "a little knowledge is a dangerous thing"

Edit - I just read your post. I meant that "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have THIS much of an effect on the climate." i.e. CH4 increases alone cannot account for the imbalance we are seeing. I've already agreed that CH4 is a greenhouse gas and DO have AN effect.

Edit 2 - I've been looking for a recent video describing why we should move away from fossil fuels even if we consider the whole climate change thing irrelevant.
The basis was that non-point source emissions are known to have very negative effects on people's health. It is a given. You live in a city with more air pollution, you're more likely to get sick. You sit in a garage running an electric car, you'll be okay. Change that to a V6 and you're not going to be feeling well after just 5 minutes.

How can you say that reducing air pollution is a bad thing?

Edit 3 - This a fun watch:

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I'm not sure what I am meant to be seeing in the comparison. Alaska emissions of CH4? You have Sarah Palin up there, right, and she does talk a lot (. . .) that could account for 50% of the increase in CH4 emissions during that period.

The massive shift on an annual basis CO2 goes through that CH4 does not. CO2 is relatively easy to control with the appropriate technology and investment (available now) but that is not the case with CH4.

How can you say that reducing air pollution is a bad thing?

CO2 nor CH4 is "air pollution." CO, O3, SOx, NOx, Pb, and aerosols are. In the case of your car, it's the CO that kills you first.

 

[silkstone]

The massive shift on an annual basis CO2 goes through that CH4 does not. CO2 is relatively easy to control with the appropriate technology and investment (available now) but that is not the case with CH4.


CO2 nor CH4 is "air pollution." CO, O3, SOx, NOx, Pb, and aerosols are. In the case of your car, it's the CO that kills you first.

No, but lets move to renewables to reduce air pollution anyway.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Ethanol, Biodiesel, hydro, solar = destroys habitats
Geothermal = may cause earthquakes (not unlike fracking), limited availability
Wind = kills birds, is unreliable, and only economically feasible due to energy subsidies
Solar = decreases albedo (increasing surface temperatures), available only half of the day (give or take), is potentially unreliable (weather pending), and only economically feasible due to energy subsidies
Did I miss any?

All combined they are inadequate to fulfill the energy needs of today (nevermind the future) without changing the face of the earth forever (in a bad way).

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I know the story of the banana..
Monsanto practice kills and is proven to do so.. they sell seeds to farmers and those seeds are made to work with Round Up. The worst pesticide ever that harms humans bees and the earth itself.
If im going to hell for wanting healthy change in the world then I gladly go to the light of flames and watch from above into the depths at those who thought they universally understood everything.

Let's get our terminology clear then. The reason I've stated what I have is that GMO is thrown around as if a curse, but it shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means.

What you seem to be against is one type of modified plants, which are designed for higher yields and resistance to pesticides. You seem to be against the use of pesticides as well. I'm willing to give you that (and agree to some extent), but neither of these things are inherent to GMO. Both of them are things which you hate, that one corporation is doing. I'm just asking you to separate GMO from the unique brand of GMO that you don't want. Hating Monsanto is alright, but hating GMO as a whole isn't.

Seriously though, Norman Borlaug. If you can do research on his contributions, and see that he himself defines his process as genetic modification, while condemning the work I don't know if you're human. Seeing someone capable of relieving so much suffering, simply by hybridizing plants for agriculture, is astonishing. Condemning it outright means a death sentence for most of the world.

1) Yes, climate is always changing.
2) I don't know. Surely there are human contributions involved but I can't definitively say those contributions are solely nor mostly to blame.
4) I said man has undeniably contributed to CO2 rising levels. See #2 for why I don't/won't go further than that.
5) "Versus?" @silkstone said "CO2 is the only gas re-entering our atmosphere in sufficiently large quantities to have much of an effect on the climate." That's not true because of CH4. Both are greenhouse gases and the anthropogenic warming (should it be occurring) are a combination of the two (as well as about a dozen other factors).


I like to not leave a footprint so I am of the mind that the atmospheric conditions of 1700 are preferable to the conditions of today. Anything that moves the composition of the air towards what they were in 1700 is a good thing in my mind. I don't care about the squabbles of "global climate change," I look at CH4 being more than double what it was just 300 years ago and I say "that's a problem." I look at CO2 and reach a similar conclusion (albeit not as alarmed):

I look at cloud information saying there wasn't cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City before man took to the sky and today, there are cirrus clouds present over that airspace 60% of the time. These are obvious problems and we should be course correcting for them. Whether or not "climate change" is correlated or not matters not to me. At the same time, I caution that reducing CO2 emissions should not come with an increase in CH4 (which is the current trend). They all need to be addressed, simultaneously.


The spike in CH4 and CO2 in the graphs I've posted are undeniably due to human activity. There is no other plausible explanation. Again, I won't explicitly tie those jumps to climate. Climate is far too complex and there are far too many questions lingering to reach that conclusion at this point.

Respectfully, I don't care about the argument from Silkstone. I don't care because it isn't relevant to the question at hand.

The question at hand is of your consistency of argument.


You stated that climate change might or might not be a thing, and that you were going to wait for supercomputer models to verify its voracity. Fine. I think it's crap, but that's besides the point. You state that the only thing we're sure of is that man has increased the atmospheric levels of CO2. I cited that post, because your words are quite clear there.


I'll let you extrapolate what you will, but there's two clear conclusions here. First, you either didn't know about the CH4 levels at the time, or were intellectually dishonest with the conclusion that CO2 was all humanity was putting into the atmosphere faster than it could be cycled out. You're welcome to tell me which, but either conclusion means you missed a fact that you are focusing on hard right now. A fact that you believe justifies some insane measures of action be taken immediately. Finally, you don't have a consistent stance. In the beginning, the climate change wasn't anthropogenic. Whenever other people said it was happening, you denied that it was anthropogenic, and attributed it to regular geological and atmospheric cycles. Now the cause of the changes is all humanity's fault. It doesn't matter what compound it is we're releasing, but it is humanity doing this.


You've yet to square the two statements.

Why does this matter? When I, and others, suggested something needed to be done you were staunchly opposed. It doesn't exist, therefore it can safely be ignored. Now, you're here suggesting population control. Which is it? If humanity is doing it, murder is an excellent way to mitigate it. If humanity isn't responsible, you're advocating for murder. Are you a monster, a savior, or just someone who can't really form a coherent logic because of the conflicting nature of their beliefs? I've asked that simple question, and have yet to receive a simple answer. Let's try one last time to get a clear statement.


I assume that you think climate change is real. I assume that you believe humans have had a direct impact (as your CH4 and radical particle data suggests). I finally assume that, given your stated stance of population control, you believe that humanity has a direct impact on climate.

Given all of these assumptions, how do you square them with your earlier statements that a new model of climate might disprove the theory of climate change being largely anthropogenically driven, and even stating that CO2 was the only thing that was being worried about:

I suspect not much on both accounts. Most credible sources on climate aren't sounding the alarm for today, they're sounding it for the future. They warn about reducing CO2 output today so it doesn't exceed a threshold in the future.

Edit:
Let me take a wild stab here, and try to help you.

In post 629 you make reference to CO2 and CH4 being linked. A fair assertion. When you respond to me two pages later CO2 is the only concern. You're now to the point where CH4 is the primary issue, with CO2 being a supplementary issue.

It's like pinning jello to a wall. Whenever you need to argue a specific point, the other item is forgotten. Then an alternative point comes up, and that previous argument is cast aside.

I could buy this entirely if you stuck with the denial side of anthropogenic climate change. While I think it's a backwards statement, at least is shows consistency in the message. You started with "humanity might be involved," traveled to "I'm waiting for the supercomputers to tell us is humans can have any impact," and are now at "kill most humans so that the problem can be fixed."

I can't understand that level of change in logic. You haven't provided me a guide to understanding the logic. All I can read from this thread is that you have plenty of arguments for things, yet no string to tie these things into a coherent logic. Can you provide that logic, or will you continue moving the goalposts of the argument such that the discussion is pointless?

 

[FordGT90Concept]

I hate these posts about rhetoric and not substance. Don't count on me replying to more rhetoric because no one learns anything from it...

First, you either didn't know about the CH4 levels at the time, or were intellectually dishonest with the conclusion that CO2 was all humanity was putting into the atmosphere faster than it could be cycled out.

I've know about CH4 being problematical since at least 2007 (posts on General Nonsense). I just didn't mention it because it wasn't pertinent to the thread until Silkstone's post. The post you insist on quoting, I was giving an example; it was never intended to be all inclusive like it seems you wish it were.

A fact that you believe justifies some insane measures of action be taken immediately.

Negative. It's the aggregate (over fishing, crop surplus dwindling, rising CO2, rising CH4, increasing cirrus cloud formations, moving from coal and oil to methane for energy, increasing frequency and severity of water shortage, rate of species extinction increasing, and so on) that draws the conclusion of overpopulation. If you want an immediate solution to all of those problems, reducing human population is the only one that checks all of the boxes.

Whenever other people said it was happening, you denied that it was anthropogenic, and attributed it to regular geological and atmospheric cycles.

No, I said climate is always changing. Human activity may be influencing climate but it doesn't matter. We need to focus on what we know which is very clearly demonstrated by those graphs I posted.

Now the cause of the changes is all humanity's fault.

Depends on what you're talking about. Overfishing? Absolutely. Ocean acidification? I'm not sure. When you're talking about "cause" for climates to change, that's a huge field of grays, not blacks and whites.

You've yet to square the two statements.

No, you want me to stick a few correlations in the holy grail basket called "global warming" and imply they have causations. I'm not going to do that until there's are far fewer questions marks.

When you respond to me two pages later CO2 is the only concern.

Responding to a reply about CO2. To bring up CH4 again would be to go off topic.

You're now to the point where CH4 is the primary issue, with CO2 being a supplementary issue.

CH4 is a bigger problem in the long term because it much harder to combat. That isn't "primary" or "secondary." It's a statement of fact.

You started with "humanity might be involved,"...

In specific details, humans are definitely involved. Case in point: there wouldn't be cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City without aircraft.

...traveled to "I'm waiting for the supercomputers to tell us is humans can have any impact,"...

Generally, this is where I'm sitting. CO2 is well understood but there's many other fields of climate that are not. CH4 and weather are examples.

...and are now at "kill most humans so that the problem can be fixed."

@silkstone suggested that, not me. I responded to the theoretical and in doing so, I never suggested "kill."

 

[lilhasselhoffer]

I hate these posts about rhetoric and not substance. Don't count on me replying to more rhetoric because no one learns anything from it...


I've know about CH4 being problematical since at least 2007 (posts on General Nonsense). I just didn't mention it because it wasn't pertinent to the thread until Silkstone's post. The post you insist on quoting, I was giving an example; it was never intended to be all inclusive like it seems you wish it were.


Negative. It's the aggregate (over fishing, crop surplus dwindling, rising CO2, rising CH4, increasing cirrus cloud formations, moving from coal and oil to methane for energy, increasing frequency and severity of water shortage, rate of species extinction increasing, and so on) that draws the conclusion of overpopulation. If you want an immediate solution to all of those problems, reducing human population is the only one that checks all of the boxes.


No, I said climate is always changing. Human activity may be influencing climate but it doesn't matter. We need to focus on what we know which is very clearly demonstrated by those graphs I posted.


Depends on what you're talking about. Overfishing? Absolutely. Ocean acidification? I'm not sure. When you're talking about "cause" for climates to change, that's a huge field of grays, not blacks and whites.


No, you want me to stick a few correlations in the holy grail basket called "global warming" and imply they have causations. I'm not going to do that until there's are far fewer questions marks.


Responding to a reply about CO2. To bring up CH4 again would be to go off topic.


CH4 is a bigger problem in the long term because it much harder to combat. That isn't "primary" or "secondary." It's a statement of fact.


In specific details, humans are definitely involved. Case in point: there wouldn't be cirrus clouds over Salt Lake City without aircraft.


Generally, this is where I'm sitting. CO2 is well understood but there's many other fields of climate that are not. CH4 and weather are examples.


@silkstone suggested that, not me. I responded to the theoretical and in doing so, I never suggested "kill."

We're supposed to be having a discussion here. You aren't having a discussion, you're introducing multiple logically inconsistent points, and coming up with radically different conclusions based upon who you are talking to. Either that means your argument is based upon nothing tangible, it's based on a point being communicated ineptly, or you are a troll trying to get laughs.

The final point is unlikely at best, so we can disregard it.

The second point is a strong possibility. You've thrown many a figure out there, that you've then contradicted by saying that despite the information you're ignoring it until a supercomputer can crunch the numbers. That's a rather mealy mouthed answer to the original question posed, about climate change. I'll accept it, but that really means you need to sit out of the discussion. By your own logic, none of this data means anything without an accurate model to tell us what it's doing.

Where I'm sticking this is that your argument is an unintelligible mess of disparate facts woven together with a logical bias from the beginning. Whenever somebody says climate change is a thing, you differ from the present accumulated knowledge, because a model of sufficient complexity hasn't been demonstrated. Instead of stopping there though, you tell us that CO2 is the only thing that can be linked to humanity. This contradicted earlier statements that CO2 and CH4 emissions were somehow linked. That would be acceptable, if you didn't proceed to explicitly state that humans were responsible, and would have to come to terms with out CH4 output. So which is it? Is it humans substantially influencing climate change? Is it a case where you changed beliefs? Is it a case where no matter what facts are presented you'll move the goal posts to get what you want as an answer?


I'm done again. You can't be discussed with, because every time an argument is made you redefine the goal posts. In one instance, humans have to come to terms with everything, and are a significant factor. In the next instance, it's still a question of whether climate change exists. I congratulate you on continuing this discussion well past the point of covering the facts. To any still reading, please understand that this is pointless and not informative. You can argue with a climate change denier, and understand how their facts influence their interpretation. You can argue with a climate change support, and get their facts. Whenever a person can't decide what they believe, but they can throw a grotesque amount of contradictory data and ideas in your path, then the discussion needs to die. Good day.

 

[Easy Rhino]

Again with this? Don't you people know it is silly to argue over these numbers because we don't know if the numbers are accurate. We also don't really know to what extend humanity is causing warming if there is any. I mean, you could argue until you are blue in the face but it won't change anyone's mind who makes policy decisions on these things because those people are already bought and paid for. So unless you have a fat bank account shut up.

 

[silkstone]

@silkstone suggested that, not me. I responded to the theoretical and in doing so, I never suggested "kill."

I should probably apologize for that. I know you didn't say to 'kill all humans,' but your arguments sounded like justification for a global eugenics project. People tried such things in the past (for different reasons) with horrifying results.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

@lilhasselhoffer: You talk about "goal posts." In my mind, you're talking about different fields so the goal posts never moved--they are unique. To say the outcomes of games played on their respective fields (factors of climate) are related creates hundreds of questions I don't have answers for (wind, illness, type of grass, ball inflation level, barometric pressure, time of day, etc.).

Indecisiveness is my nature; I deal with facts as they present themselves and only draw conclusions when a) I'm comfortable doing so or b) am forced to due to a time pressure.

 

[magibeg]

It was an issue a few pages back that 2015 might not have been the hottest year on record. Clearly no one has bothered to check up after the fact but here we go:

"Not only was 2015 the warmest worldwide since records began in 1880, it shattered the previous record held in 2014 by the widest margin ever observed, a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

So we broke the record for hottest, then broke a record for how much we have been breaking records

 

[silkstone]

On this topic, debate outside of the scientific community is pointless, unless you have the time to do lots of reading, as no one has enough in-depth knowledge to fully support their position.

The arguments can generally be split in to two sides. Those who trust in Science and the Scientific process and those that believe the Scientific method can not be trusted.

Unfortunately, there are more and more people (especially in the US) who are not being taught Science and so when they see evidence from two competing sources, they are generally unable to evaluate the validity and thus choose the one that suits them. It's a huge move (socially) backwards and empowering to those in positions of power over others.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It was an issue a few pages back that 2015 might not have been the hottest year on record. Clearly no one has bothered to check up after the fact but here we go:

"Not only was 2015 the warmest worldwide since records began in 1880, it shattered the previous record held in 2014 by the widest margin ever observed, a report by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) said."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-21/2015-was-by-far-hottest-in-modern-times-noaa/7103164

So we broke the record for hottest, then broke a record for how much we have been breaking records

Straight from the horse's mouth:
http://go.nasa.gov/1ZQwf63

 

[Frick]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

 

[silkstone]

http://arstechnica.com/science/2016...ated-the-truth-about-global-temperature-data/

Another move away from science and because it doesn't suit everyone's politics (/is inconvenient)

It's particularly concerning (though somewhat unsurprising) that the Heartland Institute are at it again, they seem to decry/reject anything and everything that supports the evidence for human influenced climate change.

That wouldn't really bother me so much, if every study they funded didn't fit their political agenda and their own funding sources were transparent.

They are the most shady foundation out their, yet so many deniers seem to parrot their arguments.

They are effective, i'll give them that, but its modern-day corruption and propaganda at its finest.

 

[rtwjunkie]

Unfortunately, there are more and more people (especially in the US) who are not being taught Science and so when they see evidence from two competing sources, they are generally unable to evaluate the validity and thus choose the one that suits them. It's a huge move (socially) backwards and empowering to those in positions of power over others

I do take a little bit of issue with this generalized statement about US children not being educated on this. I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak about my children's school.

A few years ago, when my youngest was in High School, they spent a number of weeks on the subject of climate change. Both the textbooks and the teacher taught from a neutral standpoint. Statistics were given, as well as the effects climate change have had on a number of factors, including an increase in natural disaster events. Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally, the teacher never giving their personal opinion. In culmination, the students were then required to write a term paper on their own view of what the main causes were, and recommend ways to deal with climate change going forward.

I was actually very pleased that it was presented in this manner, and was very educational. Just my two cents on this, which certainly cannot be a response for all education systems in the U.S. but only my small slice.

 

[Vayra86]

Methane...

I do tend to fart alot the past few years. I see a trend evolving here...

 

[silkstone]

I do take a little bit of issue with this generalized statement about US children not being educated on this. I can't speak for all of them, but I can speak about my children's school.

A few years ago, when my youngest was in High School, they spent a number of weeks on the subject of climate change. Both the textbooks and the teacher taught from a neutral standpoint. Statistics were given, as well as the effects climate change have had on a number of factors, including an increase in natural disaster events. Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally, the teacher never giving their personal opinion. In culmination, the students were then required to write a term paper on their own view of what the main causes were, and recommend ways to deal with climate change going forward.

I was actually very pleased that it was presented in this manner, and was very educational. Just my two cents on this, which certainly cannot be a response for all education systems in the U.S. but only my small slice.

You do realize that is a prime example of my point, right?

That is not how science is done and this leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and an erosion of trust in science.

"Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally"

Science does not follow a debating process. It is not the same as politics, where two sides might argue their points to legalizing same-sex marriage or not. If they were asked to make a judgement on the causes, then they would need an idea as to the 'weight' of the scientific evidence on each 'side.' It's a little like giving them Aristotle's theory about gravity and Newton's theory side-by-side and asking which one they feel is correct or even giving students the young-earth argument vs. the theory of evolution and saying, these are the two sides, which one is right?

 

[rtwjunkie]

You do realize that is a prime example of my point, right?

That is not how science is done and this leads to a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is and an erosion of trust in science.

"Then as to the cause, each side's argument was put forth neutrally"

Science does not follow a debating process. It is not the same as politics, where two sides might argue their points to legalizing same-sex marriage or not. If they were asked to make a judgement on the causes, then they would need an idea as to the 'weight' of the scientific evidence on each 'side.' It's a little like giving them Aristotle's theory about gravity and Newton's theory side-by-side and asking which one they feel is correct or even giving students the young-earth argument vs. the theory of evolution and saying, these are the two sides, which one is right?

The object was to get them thinking, asking questions and researching. It was good preparatory work for college. The most important thing a university education provides isn't the information given. It is getting people to analyze, question and think for themselves. The uneducated mindset truly only spouts what was given to them, no thinking involved. Those are the truly dangerous people because they are so easily swayed. This class gave them a head start on college level classes.

 

[HossHuge]

Air pollution is what I'm concerned about mostly. Whether you believe in "man-made" climate change or not, you can't deny that air pollution related diseases are on the rise.

I can't believe this thread has gotten to 36 pages and I haven't seen it yet.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In the context of climate, "aerosols" is used more often to describe air pollution than "pollution." Oldest reference (almost a year ago):

Here's another crucial point: aerosols. Aircraft exhaust doesn't seed big cumulonimbus clouds that cause negative feedback; no, they seed high altitude cirrus clouds that cause positive feedback. As such, aircraft may have a much larger impact on heating the surface of the earth than just through CO2.

I doubt anyone here would argue air pollution is a good thing.

 

[silkstone]

The object was to get them thinking, asking questions and researching. It was good preparatory work for college. The most important thing a university education provides isn't the information given. It is getting people to analyze, question and think for themselves. The uneducated mindset truly only spouts what was given to them, no thinking involved. Those are the truly dangerous people because they are so easily swayed. This class gave them a head start on college level classes.

If it were to be done neutrally, It would go something like this: The teacher would teach the carbon and water cycle. Talk about the science behind the greenhouse effect and how it works (including the physics behind GH gasses). Link the two with the enhanced greenhouse effect.
Then assign an essay on climate change (might give a title or leave it open). They would then go away and do their own research, citing where their information was obtained. This is assuming they have access to a scientific database.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Link the two with the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Therein lies the problem. Changes in greenhouse gasses are only relevant when trying to reconcile observed temperature versus a preindustrial temperature in models. No doubt a correlation exists but correlation does not imply causation.