In other climate news, the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) — which represents tens of thousands of science teachers in the US — has apparently refused the gift of 50,000 DVDs of "An Inconvenient Truth" for its members (the linked article at the Washington Post was written by one of the producers of the film). I have not seen this movie (I plan to), but I know that environmental scientists seem to support it. Since I am not that particular flavor of scientist, I’m moved to listen to those who are. It seems odd to me that the NSTA would refuse the gift. From the WaPo article, NSTA said:
Accepting the DVDs, they wrote, would place “unnecessary risk upon the [NSTA] capital campaign, especially certain targeted supporters.” One of those supporters, it turns out, is the Exxon Mobil Corp.
Wow. I mean, really. Wow.
If they wanted to say that they didn’t want to participate in a political debate, I might find that acceptable, except that I get the NSTA newsletter, and they have political notes in it quite often. Also, according to this poster at the NSTA discussion board, they distribute educational videos produced by the oil industry.
Then there is this, also from the WaPo article:
NSTA’s list of corporate donors also includes Shell Oil and the American Petroleum Institute (API), which funds NSTA’s Web site on the science of energy. There, students can find a section called “Running on Oil” and read a page that touts the industry’s environmental track record — citing improvements mostly attributable to laws that the companies fought tooth and nail, by the way — but makes only vague references to spills or pollution. NSTA has distributed a video produced by API called “You Can’t Be Cool Without Fuel,” a shameless pitch for oil dependence.
I used to be a member of the NSTA but let my membership lapse due to my own laziness. However, I am now reconsidering ever renewing it. The NSTA does a huge amount of really good work, but if this is true it’s appalling. Avoiding angering a sponsor is understandable, but this would be standing in the way of open debate and in fact looks like they are swayed by the sponsor the other way. That, to me, does not sound like science at all.
Hopefully more information will air out about this soon. In general I support the NSTA’s mission, of course but these questions need to be answered.
Note: After writing this essay Sunday night, I saw that PZ Myers has similar thoughts. Also, Sara Robinson has some harsher words for the NSTA. And to do an end-run around any global warming deniers who will post in the comments, take a look at RealClimate.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:17 pm
Hi Phil
as my “go to science guy” on the net, you’ll forgive me if I ask you a question that may not be up your alley. First of all, let me say that I’m all for stopping our dependence on fossil fuels if only because of the pollution it creates, never mind other associated nasties like GW. But do you think the scientific community is rallying behind this issue without a critical examination of the facts?
Before you give me a thousand links pointing to tons of research papers on the reality of GW, my concern is this: is mainstream science so convinced of GW that any scientist worth his salt, or one hoping to make a name for himself, wouldn’t dare risk his career by publishing a paper against GW? Put another way, suppose you’re a scientist and you can do research that will either support or undermine GW. All else being equal, which would you choose? Or suppose you’ve done “neutral research” (if such a thing is possible) and you’re analyzing your data. Do you show both sides or only the one that supports the popular mainstream theory?
I know science is about finding the objective truth, but research is carried out by subjective individuals. Do you think there’s any chance the average scientist feels in any way pressured to publish only pro-GW findings?
Cheers from Madrid
Sergio
November 27th, 2006 at 9:42 pm
That is pretty scary. I hope there are NSTA members reading this who will be asking awkward questions of their (presumably elected) officials. I can’t believe that tens of thousands of science teachers would agree with this approach.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:49 pm
Only if their salaries depended on it.
Unfortunately money outweighs truth sometimes.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
They might if their salaries depended on it.
Money often outweighs truth, unfortunately.
November 27th, 2006 at 9:56 pm
Sometimes you post twice trying to sound smug and smart!
I think often beats sometimes, though.
November 27th, 2006 at 10:01 pm
How come whenever an “anti-GW” article/press release comes out, it is always pointed out that the person’s funding (whether in part or in full) comes from an oil company or the like?
Where are all of the “pro-GW” studies getting money from? Hmmm….maybe environmentalist groups and agencies?
How can you assume that oil companies introduce bias into their research while at the same time insist that environmentalist groups wouldn’t introduce their own bias, seeing as supporting GW will further their agenda, i.e. cleaning up the environment?
November 27th, 2006 at 10:52 pm
[…] Oh. Oh. Oh. I think just about every science blogger I read is up in arms about this one. […]
November 28th, 2006 at 1:02 am
Sergio - as a scientist _I_ would do research to find out what is going on - but always in the _hope_ that my results would challenge the current consenus. A scientist doesn’t get much recognition for proving what everybody else knows. The way to make a name for yourself is to prove what everybody else knows to be true to be false.
Do climate scientists think the same way? I’m sure they do.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:50 am
The discussion forum at the NSTA web site on the refusal to accept the DVDs is encouragingly unanimous against the decision. Unfortunately there are only 7 entries, not many considering the size of the membership.
I looked at the incoming and outgoing presidents of the organization and a couple of the board of directors and found nothing that pegged them as particularly pro-corporation. But the organization itself claims to be in a partnership with the corporate world.
http://www.nsta.org/main/pdfs/AnnualReport2003.pdf
pg 7
…NSTA staff began reflecting on how we do business and serve our customers. This means answering many important questions, such as these: Is our business model as current as it should be? What new trends in e-commerce should we adopt to complement our already successful Internet-based service methods? Are we “delighting the customer†with our products and services? How do we deal with the effects of a continuing soft economy and fiscal belt-tightening?
NSTA’s Corporate Advisory Group is helping NSTA explore these and other important questions. As you can see from the list at left, the group is composed of prestigious leaders of corporations, foundations, and universities that have a strong connection with and commitment to science education. They come together twice a year to counsel NSTA staff on strategies that will help us operate efficiently. This new group signifies how determined NSTA is to grow and change with the times. But one thing will never change: We realize that partners like our Corporate Advisory Group members and the many contributors listed in this report are vital to our ability to advance science education. I offer my sincere thanks for the generous support these partners …
pg 6
NSTA CORPORATE ADVISORS
Chair of the Corporate Advisory Group - Richard Schaar, President - Educational & Productivity Solutions - Texas Instruments
Edward Ahnert, President - ExxonMobil Foundation
John Anderson, President - Toshiba America Foundation
Alfred R. Berkeley III, Vice Chair - NASDAQ Stock Market
George E. Borst, President/CEO - Toyota Financial Services
Mark Emmert, Chancellor - Louisiana State University
Wendy Ramage Hawkins, President - Intel Foundation
Stacy King, President/CEO - Clear Channel Exhibitions
Len Roberts, Chair/CEO - RadioShack Corporation
pg 11
NSTA partnered with many companies and organizations to honor outstanding science educators with its 2002–2003 Awards. We are thankful to these
companies for their continued support to reward excellence in science education:
l Ciba Specialty Chemicals Education Foundation
l Delta Education LLC
l Discovery Channel
l Dow Chemical Company
l Drug, Chemical & Allied Trades Association
l Estes Industries
l Ohaus Corporation
l Science Screen Report, Inc.
l SeaWorld Adventure Parks & Busch Gardens
l Shell Oil Company
l Space Foundation
pg 20 and 21 lists corporate consributors
There’s awards funding:
http://www.nsta.org/AdvisoryBoardsandPanels
Award Panels
* Craftsman/NSTA Young Inventors Awards Panel
* Shell Science Teaching Award Panel
* Toshiba ExploraVision Panel
* Toyota TAPESTRY Judging Panel
There are the lobbying activities:
http://www.stemedcaucus.org/
Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education is responsible for providing our country with three kinds of intellectual capital:
* Scientists and engineers who will continue the research and development that is central to the economic growth of our country
* Technologically proficient workers who are capable of dealing with the demands of a science based, high technology workforce; and
* Scientifically literate voters and citizens who make intelligent decisions about public policy and who understand the world around them.
Effective Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) Education is critical. The STEM ED Caucus seeks to strengthen STEM education at all levels (K-12, higher education and workforce) by providing a forum for Congress and the science, education and business communities to discuss challenges, problems, and solutions related to STEM education. Read more voices calling for changes to our nation’s STEM education.
The STEM Ed Caucus Steering Committee website is maintained by the National Science Teachers Association.
Which makes the position statements seem a bit disingenuous:
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=9
NSTA Position Statement - Environmental Education
Central to environmental literacy is the ability of students to master critical-thinking skills that will prepare them to evaluate issues and make informed decisions regarding stewardship of the planet.
http://www.nsta.org/positionstatement&psid=1
NSTA Position Statement - Accountability
NSTA believes that individuals are accountable first to those directly affected by their actions and second to all other interested parties. Thus science teachers are accountable primarily to students and parents.
It’s clear this group is deeply connected to the corporate world. At the same time the membership doesn’t appear on its face to be corporate people. They look like ambitious science teachers. In my opinion, they need a wake up call reminding them they do not serve science education best by promoting a convenient blind spot when it comes to criticizing actions of the corporate world.
Better the organization influences their sponsors than letting a few sponsored awards and misc. donations influence the organization. The membership should speak up a bit more loudly. I bet the companies involved spend a bit of time wooing those council and board members by various means. I suspect the leaders of the NSTA can’t easily hear the members over the usual corporate interference.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:52 am
Thanks for your comments Phil. I just posted about the same palaver, and thought I’d search Technorati to see who else was taking hold of it. I hope it gathers some momentum.
In response to Steve - the big industries have the unfair advantage in the propaganda war. They have the money. Environmentalists are normally running on a shoestring. I struggle to see how the environmentalist’s ‘agenda’ (cleaning up the environment) can be self-serving - except in the sense of self-preservation. I’m happy there are people trying to swim against the current.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:04 am
Sergio, the scientific community is pretty consistently behind global warming as a fact. There is disagreement on the cause though I would say the majority probably accept human caused CO2 is the major factor. There are a few who aren’t sure it is so bad to warm the climate given we are historically due for the next major ice age. But the majority don’t think rapid change in climate will be benign.
The current US administration and the corporations involved in profiting from burning fossil fuels have promoted the minority scientific opinion that global warming is merely normal climate fluctuation, human contributions to the CO2 in the atmosphere is not having any effect. The effort, given that corporations own and therefore influence the news media, has given many people the inaccurate perception there is no scientific consensus on global warming.
But regardless of where you stand, unless “An Inconvenient Truth” had reviews condemning it as bad science, then what other reason does the NSTA have for rejecting the offer? Certainly they cannot claim they wish to stay out of the debate given the corporate sponsorship they freely accept as an organization.
It would be very interesting to know just who made and who influenced the decision to turn down the DVD offer. That’s the first thing I would demand to know were I a member of the organization.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:09 am
All these conspiracy theories about how scientists are all in it together to fool the poor public with their latest scheme on global warming… Please. The theory of global warming did not appear overnight from nowhere. It is the result of many years of research of many people from different areas of science. It took some time to put the pieces together and create the AGW theory.
No, scientists are not pressured to produce data to confirm anything. Anybody who knows the usual bunch of scientists will be aware that they like nothing more than coming up with something new or different.
The problem is that it have been the liberals in the US who were first on to it and that means that any republican now can’t admit they were right about it. Alternatively it is seen as another socialist tax excuse…
Science is science. Even if you don’t like the outcome or the consequences of the outcome. Right now the weight of the evidence clearly is towards the fact that the warming measured over the last fifty years is mostly due to human carbon emissions. Is it a black and white, open and shut case? No, but it is a very compelling one. As the Economist quite rightfully said, it makes sense to spend some money on an insurance policy when faced with a potentially significant risk.
Andrew Dessler has an excellent blog on climate science and offers well balanced views on the subject…
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2006/11/14/175433/87
An if you want a good science blog with some really fringe views in the comments section you want to check out SciGuy from Houston:
http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2006/11/supremes_to_tac.html
November 28th, 2006 at 3:25 am
BA said:
“I used to be a member of the NSTA but let my membership lapse due to my own laziness. However, I am now reconsidering ever renewing it.”
You meant “never” instead of “ever,” right?
Sorry for picking nits, but in some grammatical universes …..
November 28th, 2006 at 3:45 am
Eddie,
No, BA’s version reads right to me. The “ever” just adds emphasis whereas “never” would suggest that he was now more likely to renew rather than less.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:46 am
Eddie,
No, BA’s version reads right to me. The ‘ever’ just adds emphasis whereas ‘never’ would suggest that he was now more likely to renew rather than less.
November 28th, 2006 at 3:47 am
Sorry about that, I got a whole page of error messages and didn’t notice that the message had actually posted :o/
November 28th, 2006 at 4:13 am
Ruth,
You are correct. I apologize. BA wrote “reconsidering” rather than “considering,” as I misread.
I’ll shut up now.
Thanks for correcting me.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:22 am
There is a lot of skepticism regarding global warming because no matter what happen, the GW boosters say “oh yeah, that makes sense with global warming.” Too many hurricanes? Global warming, Too few hurricanes? Global warming. Too much snow? Global warming. Too little snow? Global warming. It’s almost a joke. Until I see solid evidence in a format undertandable by the average person (me), I won’t believe that GW is anything more than a way for scientists to keep their grant money flowing.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:32 am
After making a fool of myself by misreading BA’s post, I refuse to point out that Tim’s need to “see solid evidence in a format undertandable by the average person (me), I won’t believe that GW is anything more than a way for scientists to keep their grant money flowing” comment is a little lame.
Whoops, I just did, didn’t I?
But, I mean, that’s undertandable, right?
November 28th, 2006 at 4:34 am
Tim,
You know how to use the internet, you’re here after all… try and go to http://realclimate.org/
They have an excellent site with many good links as well. Global warming is often reffered to as climate change for a reason. Not everywhere weather will be warmer. It is likely weather will be more unpredictable and extreme. also important to understand that climate is measured over a long period. Therefore you can never say that any particular event is caused by climate change. You can say that the probability of an extreme weather event will be more or less likely because of climate change. Read beyond the media hype stories and find the science behind them…
November 28th, 2006 at 5:37 am
In fact, IIRC, global warming will cause most of Europe will go into a deep freeze due to the collapse of certain ocean currents that currently moderate the temperature in that area.
November 28th, 2006 at 5:42 am
skeptigirl says:
“The discussion forum at the NSTA web site on the refusal to accept the DVDs is encouragingly unanimous against the decision. Unfortunately there are only 7 entries, not many considering the size of the membership.”
I am very skeptical of this thread on the NSTA Board. IMO it appears to be a minor eco-conspiracy, just hit and run. I say that because,
1. All but one of the members joined on or after 11/26/06, the day that the Laurie David article appears.
2. They all have only one post
3. None of the posters have any sort of public profile.
BTW, you don’t have to be a NSTA member to join the discussion board.
I think Laurie David said it best,
“In the meantime, Mom and Dad may want to keep a sharp eye on their kids’ science homework.” I do that all the time for my kids science and social studies.
November 28th, 2006 at 6:55 am
Well, they DID note it was “inconvenient”.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:30 am
Phil, please, please, please, you have to see that movie! As soon as possible!
November 28th, 2006 at 7:32 am
“To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out…to use logic against logic…that was the ultimate subtlety…” (p. 35)
that’s an orwell quote from the NSTA website.
November 28th, 2006 at 7:35 am
You can download the original presentation by Al Gore here:
http://climatechangeaction.blogspot.com/2006/04/video-of-week-al-gore-inconvenient_28.html
November 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
[…] video. People in the blogosphere are expressing shock and dismay at this, and rightly so. Permalink […]
November 28th, 2006 at 8:18 am
Whether you are “for” or “against” global warming, the idea that a group of companies gets to define what science teachers present in their classrooms and that the NSTA gets to turn down an opposing view in the form of (for those of us who are scientists and who HAVE seen the movie) a very realistic assessment of the issues in climate change in the form of a movie smacks of everything that science ISN’T about: directed opinion, pre-ordained results, politically motivated actions, and non-scientific thought. Science is about paying attention to ALL the facts and evidence, not just the ones that suit one’s personal political or religious views.
It’s intellectual and scientific honesty at stake here, and the NSTA has set back the cause of rigorous science education in a damaging way. As one who creates science education materials, I am horrified at their actions in turning down these DVDs for fear of losing their sugar daddies in the oil business. And, for the poster who whines about why we always mention the oil company funding of things — I doubt that it’s selection effect. They seem to be funding a lot of things these days in an effort to make us all see things THEIR way. It’s no coincidence that they are allied to the disastrous president and his disastrous policies that benefit the few at the expense of the many.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:46 am
I finally got around to seeing Gore’s fantastic movie, and found myself completely alone in the theater, reflecting on the irony of how the electricity required to show and air condition the theater for one person was an example of how we contribute to the problem with very little perspective. Then, I go to Thanksgiving and find that not one of my relatives has seen this movie, and these are fairly bright people. And then when I see how you can have so many non-scientists (Tim?) speak so forcefully for or against things they know very little of, and that these Cro-Magnons can vote, I conclude that we are going to lose this environmental battle. We know what we need to do, but we would have to have an “Environmental Dictator” who would force us to walk more, waste less, etc., to bring about the positive steps in a short time that could make the difference. That is not going to happen. America is a poorly educated country where most people want to continue living as if it is 1955. Which it ain’t. I see a very, very bleak future. By the way, I started teaching at the college level in 1967 and I have seen nothing encouraging in our educational system in these 40 years.
November 28th, 2006 at 8:49 am
I think that the NSTA is refusing the DVDs for the wrong reason. Never the less, I do think that they should refuse to show them.
“An Inconvenient Truth” was an interesting movie, but it doesn’t promote good science for one simple reason.
It doesn’t cite sources.
Al Gore stands on his podium for an hour and a half giving his presentation, claiming this and that, and then just tells us to accept what he is saying as fact. There isn’t a single scientific article mentioned. That was my biggest objection to his movie. I went there to be exposed to good science from the side of the debate I am not usually on, but I never got it.
If students are going to learn about climate change, give them a copy of “The Skeptical Environmentalist,” or, dare I say it, “State of Fear.” At very least, those books cites sources, which makes them easier for students to verify or discredit.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:40 am
Hey Tim
Even without any other data, this graph:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png
would have me thinking we can’t keep dumping CO2 into the air without causing problems.
Notice that CO2 levels are now about as far above pre-industrial levels as those levels were above the CO2 levels in the coldest parts of the glacial eras.
Save the ski industry. Go Nuclear.
November 28th, 2006 at 9:59 am
This story was covered by MSNBC’s Olbermann last night. It’s worth watching his show. He’s quite good on some topics, but he doesn’t report on much news that’s not connected to political horse-races.
An Inconvenient Truth is an OK documentary. Good on the science- but there’s too much about Al Gore for my liking.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:07 am
Mark UK, at 4.34am said, “Not everywhere weather will be warmer.”
I disagree. If we are talking about *Global* Warming, then by definition it means that the mean temperature is raised by a certain amount, globally. Just what that increment is depends on the factors we are discussing. Even a one degree rise corresponds to an enormous amount of energy trapped in the Earth and its atmosphere.
However, there will still be local variations, some just as uncomfortable as at present. Whether the Winter temperature in Duluth MN. is -40 or -39 degrees (C or F - they are about the same!) is a moot point. It will still be damn cold. Or the same variation in the Sahara in Summer, will still be uncomfortable. Of course, we will still have the normal variations as now. The crunch is the effect on other weather features and sea currents and sea levels in the not so near future.
Ivan.
November 28th, 2006 at 10:48 am
Many climate models predict cooling trends in some parts of the world, mainly in high-latitude ocean regions (though some small continental regions get it as well). This is probably because of the increased energy flux being used to melt ice instead of raising the temperature, flooding the oceans will cold meltwater. Southern Greenland is a good example of this in action (and is also another clashing zone in the denier arena).
November 28th, 2006 at 10:51 am
“If we are talking about *Global* Warming, then by definition it means that the mean temperature is raised by a certain amount, globally.”
yes. but this is not inconsistent with the statement that “Not everywhere weather will be warmer.†the mean of -1 and +7 is +3. As long as the net increases out weigh the net decreases the global temperature has increased.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:10 am
Max Fagin,
Those two books are so far off honest science that they are at the same level as allowing ID books into schools. There is plenty of scientific literature available. No need to use a fictional book that consistently misquotes literature or a book so full of factual errors as Lomborg’s…
November 28th, 2006 at 11:10 am
So how many Americans does global warming kill yearly, compared to the flu or smoking? Question your perspective. (I’m being serious.)
November 28th, 2006 at 11:24 am
Mark UK,
I am well aware that much of the science in “State of Fear” and “The Skeptical Environmentalist” is tenuous, but a lot of it isn’t.
Crichton and Lomborg twisted some of their information, but so did Al Gore. And one thing that they did that Al Gore did not was providing direct citations of good science in peer reviewed journals. That way, whether or not you agree with them, you still have access to the original material they used, instead of just accepting the author at their word.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:31 am
So Max, exactly what science did Gore misrepresent in his movie? I am familiar with the relevant literature, so I’d be happy to discuss your grievances.
November 28th, 2006 at 11:35 am
Koning_robot:
How many Americans are killed by smoking the year they take up the habit?
Taking action now to prevent future harm isn’t that difficult a concept, is it?
November 28th, 2006 at 12:00 pm
# Tim Says:
November 28th, 2006 at 4:22 am
> Until I see solid evidence in a format undertandable by the average person (me),
> I won’t believe that GW is anything more than a way for scientists to keep their
> grant money flowing.
Tim, I recommend you watch the movie in question. I think it does an excellent job of presenting the evidence in a very understandable way. There’s no question that we’ve dramatically altered the chemical composition of the atmosphere. There’s also a lot of evidence to show that this has been affecting the climate. It seems a no brainer that we should be investing a lot of money into further study of global climate change.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:07 pm
Actually, Crighton got virtually nothing right in his book and Lomborg’s work is full of blatant mistakes that he is either dishonest or utterly incompetent. As far as I am aware the only slightly contentious issue in Gore’s movie was the bit about hurricanes…
Anyway, AGW theory does not rest on Gore. He is merely a messenger, not a scientist.
Question our perspective? OK. Global warming is likely to kill many many milliosn across the planet. The US is relatively lucky in that it is prosperous and will be able to deal with most issues. People will die, how many nobody knows.
In Asia people will have to deal with flooding as the glaciers melt and then with a shortage of water as the rivers run low or dry up completely. That is about 1 billion people for you there. Spend some time reading up on the issue and you can easily find out what the likely consequences will be.
November 28th, 2006 at 12:50 pm
I have to agree with Max Fagin here about the reasons not to accept the DVDs. I don’t care what NTSA showed in the past, I’m only considering “Inconvenient Truth” here. It’s not an appropriate movie to be used in schools as teaching material. If there are climatologists that really support Al Gore’s position, fine. Make a movie if them, and have it heavily cited.
In the meantime, Laurie David is free to donate the DVD’s to schools around the country if she so desired. They needn’t be getting dusty on warehouse shelves while she she makes a public spectacle over being told “no”.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:19 pm
Apparently Laurie David finds the truth inconvenient. According to an NSTA statement (http://www.nsta.org/pressroom&news_story_ID=52959), while they did not agree to distribute the DVD directly, THEY DID offer to make the DVD available through other means of distribution (making its mailing list available, through publications, at its conference etc). Apparently, Ms. David and her representatives never replied to this offer. Why would she not respond at all to this offer, and instead choose to skewer NSTA in the national media? Sounds to me like Ms. David was less concerned about getting this movie into the hands of science teachers, and more concerned about creating media buzz conveniently timed with the release of the movie on DVD. Whether or not she ever sees a penny personally is irrelevant. I guess this is the danger of accepting an op-ed piece as truth, convenient as it may be.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
Of course Brant D. Here is one distortion that Al Gore used in his movie.
Al Gore made the claim that “Out of 1000 articles from the scientific literature, not on contradicted him.” That is false.
The analysis Mr. Gore is referring to searched the scientific literature for articles pertaining to “Global Climate Change.” If however, you search the same body of literature for “Climate Change” the results are much more polar. So much so in fact, that Science published a retraction of the “0 out of a 1000″ statement. Conveniently, Al Gore didn’t mention it.
November 28th, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Actually, I read the analysis of that and Gore came out very well with his 1,000 papers. Those trying to discredit him on this point were very creative with the data.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:01 pm
No worries, mates! Corporations don’t want students thinking critically, its bad for business in the long term. Besides, when we’re all turning into roasting dust in the temperate zones, the corporate executives will be sipping their iced tea at the north pole and laughing heartily. Ho Ho Ho!
Jess Tauber- future roasting dustbunny.
November 28th, 2006 at 2:07 pm
What north pole?
November 28th, 2006 at 2:15 pm
Rising CO2 levels are a FACT. Greenhouse effect is a FACT. Flooding of low lying areas WILL occur. Alteration in rain fall patterns is alrady happening. Who will win or lose,,,that’s unknown. Since most of the largest, most prosperous cities are at or very near sea level, a rise of only 20 feet will likely cost SOMEONE $ trillions. That many people will suffer is highly likely. An ice age would cause a different set of symptoms but it should really be obvious, any serious change in the climate will cause SOME kind of problem, for someone. So, what to do?
Seek knowledge. Understand what we’re doing and try to keep things stable.
Then, prepare for the worst, because you can bet, we won’t anticipate everything.
As I’ve noted before, the ONLY long term solution to ALL these problems is diversification, spreading the species as far and wide as we can. I AM a space advocate. Space colonization probably won’t solve all problems, it will just ensure that there’s a chance someone will survive, whatever may come.
,,,and that is the nature of evolution, that there are SOME individuals, with the right qualities and in the right place to survive and carry on.
AH, dissent, thy nature yields progress,,,
GAry 7
November 28th, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Okay so the earth is going to be as hot as the engine block of my 12 MPG V8 soon. What are the solutions? What are all of you Global Warming proponants doing to reduce your “carbon footprint”?
I see on the next post up that we just sent a probe to Pluto. How much co2 was released into our atmosphere in the construction and launch of that? That thing is going to look at a chunk of ice billions of miles away. If NASA was so worried about the end of the earth due to GW, how about taking that money that is about to be shot out of our solar system and making a probe that looks at the earth? Better still how about a few thousand thermometers stuck around the earth? That comes from someone who has a limited budget and sticks to it.
Will any of you be the first in line to get that nuke plant in your area?
How about giving money to the companies to fight the lawsuits over wind farms?
I’d have alot easier time believing in GW if the same people who are constantly shouting about it from the mountain tops would stop doing so much to stop solutions that are available now.
November 28th, 2006 at 4:26 pm
Max: I take it you are referring to B. Peiser’s shot at Oreskes’ work. I think you would be interested to take a look at this:
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/03/what-about-peiser.html
Now, I don’t really do these types of investigations, so I can’t comment too much on them. However, I can say that the one serious published shot at global warming I am familiar with is Lindzen’s IRIS hypothesis paper. If you have not heard of it, the IRIS hypothesis claims that an increase in temperature leads to increased precipitation efficiency in tropical convection, shrinking the size of storm anvils. High-level cirrus warms the planet, so a warming trend triggering a decrease in cirrus coverage should snuff itself out through enhanced radiative cooling. Lindzen was able to publish it for the world to read, despite claims of science suppression. Of course, the IRIS hypothesis was shot down quite brutally because of some highly questionable assumptions and methodology, but that’s another topic. My point is that the only recent substantial article challenging global warming I have seen wasn’t all that spectacular. That’s why I personally turn a critical eye to those claiming that there are swarms of rigorous papers floating around refuting mainstream climate science.
So, any other science-based things you want to discuss?
November 28th, 2006 at 8:38 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8019931503439559546&q=bbc4
If you want a good look at some of the immediate effects of the warming and some of the anti-science of the Bush administration then the video at the above link is well worth the watch
November 28th, 2006 at 11:26 pm
[…] The NSTA has posted their response to Laura David’s Op-Ed which I (and lots of others) blogged about yesterday. First off, the executive director Dr. Gerald Wheeler clarified the NSTA position on what he feels happened during the discussions with the production company. During conversations with Ms. David’s representative we suggested making the DVD available via alternative means of distribution (e.g. by providing a mailing list of our members to producers, announcing its availability in our publications, etc.). It appears that these alternative distribution mechanisms were unsatisfactory. […]
November 29th, 2006 at 6:45 am
If ever there was a crying need for elucidation it is now. I’m looking forward to “Global Warming for Dummies”, or “GW Bible”, or even “Global Warming - The Missing Manual”.
I’ve just watched a short interview on TV, concerning GW and the likelihood that Ice-melt in the Antarctic, and also in the Arctic and Greenland, is happening faster than previously thought. This was espoused by the Director of the British Antarctic Survey, Dr Chris Rapley and shown on ABC TV, (Australian). At least this is topical, just a pity it is only a small item in the realm of things. But every little bit helps.
Where have I heard that before? Ahh yes, every little puff of CO2 helps to build up millions of tonnes of……..
Ivan.
November 29th, 2006 at 11:29 am
“And to do an end-run around any global warming deniers who will post in the comments, take a look at RealClimate. ”
“Global warming deniers”? Is that like “Holocaust deniers”? Nice loaded sideswipe, Phil.
Is this the way to do science? Name-calling and smearing anyone who dares disagree? I guess we’re only supposed to be skeptical about issues that Phil disagrees with…
November 29th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Being skeptical is fine. However, simply denying that humans have increased CO2 in the atmosphere and that this is highly likely to be one of the major causes for global warming is not being skeptical. If you deny clear and well established science, you are a denier. No matter what the subject.
If you want to be called a skeptic you need to be able to understand the state of knowledge in a certain area. It is fine to be ignorant, as long you are open to learn.
November 29th, 2006 at 1:25 pm
jasonB said:
>I see on the next post up that we just sent a probe to Pluto. How much co2 was released into our atmosphere in the construction and launch of that? That thing is going to look at a chunk of ice billions of miles away. If NASA was so worried about the end of the earth due to GW, how about taking that money that is about to be shot out of our solar system and making a probe that looks at the earth? Better still how about a few thousand thermometers stuck around the earth? That comes from someone who has a limited budget and sticks to it.
While I understand the legitimate concern over hypocritical lack of personal actions while loudly vocalizing, I don’t agree with your particular example. For starters, your statement “money that is about to be shot out of our solar system” is so incredibly stupid it defies comprehension. What, did NASA load a big bag of cash and strap it to the probe? ALL the money spent on the New Horizons mission (and every other NASA mission) has been spent here on Earth. There may be some minimal amount of economic value tied up in the materials making up the space equipment that has been lost to space (parked on the moon, crashed into Venus or Mars, etc), but that is negligible compared to the value of the scientific knowledge gained. Any other economic expenses of the program are spent on Earth and continue to cycle in the economy.
As for the priority chosen of visiting Pluto and other KBOs vs. studying Earth more, there are plenty of important issues and balancing priorities is not easy. But we would be stupid to give up everything else until we solve this “one problem”, unless that one problem is so crucial to our species survival that failure is immediately detrimental. Plus, there’s the actual dollars spent vs what alternative they would accomplish. The New Horizons program budget including every dollar already spent and every dollar to ever be spent on the program will be spent in about a week in Iraq.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:32 pm
Thanks, Mark UK. So now I’m ignorant, too.
Let’s see; you don’t know me, don’t know one thing about me, but you can deduce from one or two comments I have made that I am not a skeptic, but a denier, because I dare to express any doubt about AGW, and that I am ignorant.
When exactly did I deny that human activity generates CO2? When exactly did I claim that CO2 had NO effect on temperature? Look in vain, oh wise one, because I never did.
Your post only reenforces my point. No attempt to address questions, just name calling and dismissal.
November 29th, 2006 at 2:49 pm
Michael, what should I call them then? They deny global warming, so the name seems apt to me. If you want to read something into it that’s your problem, not mine. I chose the name not to make a sideswipe, but to simply categorize a group of people who deny the reality of GW.
November 29th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
It would be nice if those who deny climate change would actually put forth a rigorous argument for the pro-global warming people to tackle instead of continuing the stream of bilgewater they seem so infatuated with. For one, it could help us understand the science better. For two, it would let us use a term not as connotatively charged as “denial”. Not everyone enjoys being forced to use polarizing terms even if the terms are accurate, you know. Long-term use is bad for the mind and the vocabulary.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Ah Michael… first you accuse our host of excessive hyperbole, then you take the generic indicator as a personal attack.
To reparse Mark UK:
If (one) want to be called a skeptic (one) need to be able to understand the state of knowledge in a certain area. It is fine to be ignorant, as long (one) are open to learn.
Whether or not you are ignorant I cannot say without more information, but I can say that you are rather rude.
November 29th, 2006 at 7:23 pm
Irishman, You missed my point.
First off everyone has something they consider important. Take for example the end off the earth as we know it. And that IS exactly what we are talking about. Now if you waste a single cent on that problem I’d say your acting quite irresponsably. And the main point in that argument was the fact that alot of CO2 was produced for something that was not meant to solve this dire problem. Oh by the way thank you for clearing up the fact that the didn’t send up the probe with a big bag of cash with a $ on it.
Second, and I think more importantly are the points that you chose to gloss right over. Every low-carbon energy form is vigorously opposed by some environmental group the instant it is proposed in any given area.
ie. Nuclear power. hmmm. When is the last time a reactor went on line in this country?
How about the wind farms off the coast of the Kennedy compound that Mr. Green himself Robert Kennedy jr. opposes. How about the wind farms in So Cal that were opposed because a bird may fly into it?
Don’t mistake my intent. I’m all for space exploration AND keeping our current standard of living. I’m just dubious when someone tells me how to live my life and they don’t change a thing in theirs. Do you get my point?
November 29th, 2006 at 7:26 pm
BTW, the comparison to Holocaust deniers is entirely just. There is a healthy debate as to the exact nature of climate change and our hand in it in the literature, including some whose analysis says we have very little effect, and some who say we are a few years from total catastrophe. All of this is within the sphere of scientific debate however, and the best guess within that sphere is that we are the driving factor behind climate change.
Anyone that stands up in the glare of the mainstream media and pronounces that there is no such thing as man-made environmental change is flying in the face of reality, and is either willfully ignorant, or criminaly dishonest.
November 29th, 2006 at 8:56 pm
The Data being collected regarding human induced climate change isn’t just from one scientific field. There are countless sources from archaeometeorology, to paleobotany, to ice core samples, to C12/C13 ratios, to CO2 Fixation, and the list goes on and on. Those who claim that human induced climage change is not occuring, must be politically motivated and not very well read. It’s not that the media is jumping on the global warming bandwagon, but that scientists from vastly different fields are converging on one general conclusion. If those who are blinded by ignorant skepticism, or lack of thorough research into the issues wish to proclaim their ignorance to human induced global warming, then they are no different then creationists.
All this debate reminds me of the archeological evidence of the severity of the environmental impact on the Easter Islanders. Being in a closed system, they did what all humans do, use the resources at their disposal to control their environment, and forget to look forward at the finite nature of their surroundings. There can only be so many trees to chop down, birds to eat, fish to catch, etc.
Earth is itself a closed system, and you cannot exploit the available resources and expect science to control the equilibrium. The problem with tipping the scales is that at some point, a positive feedback loop develops and it takes a very long time (and probably a large number of species’ extinctions) for equilibrium to re-establish. To all the human induced global warming doubters, I’d suggest you learn to appreciate cockroaches. Once a cascade reaction starts (say methane hydrates bubble out from the sea floor or the permafrost under Siberia), the only thing left of human inpact would be those very roaches surviving on the junk food in your cupboard.
November 30th, 2006 at 8:21 am
Michael,
if you read my posts carefully you will see that I did not call you a denier. I merely responded to your post where you took issue with the whole use of the phrase “denier”. I pointed out that anybody who denies basic science is ecactly that, a denier.
I don’t know what your opinions are on global warming or whether you are ignorant in the field or a Nobel prize winner. I simply put forward the point that the phrase denier is applicable in some cases.
Besides that I stand with my point that there is nothing wrong with ignorance. As long you are aware of it and open to learn. All of us are ignorant in some areas…
If you see it as name calling, well, boohoo to you!
November 30th, 2006 at 9:30 am
jasonB said:
>Irishman, You missed my point.
No, I didn’t miss your point, in fact I said:
I just chose to address the comments I felt needed a response.
>First off everyone has something they consider important. Take for example the end off the earth as we know it. And that IS exactly what we are talking about. Now if you waste a single cent on that problem I’d say your acting quite irresponsably. And the main point in that argument was the fact that alot of CO2 was produced for something that was not meant to solve this dire problem. Oh by the way thank you for clearing up the fact that the didn’t send up the probe with a big bag of cash with a $ on it.
I agree that there is a potential that this will dramatically affect life as we know it. At the very least, we’re talking about potential deaths and devestation of coastal cities. However, there is still a lot of debate over the extent the results will actually be. I agree we should do something, but that doesn’t mean we stop doing everything else.
>Second, and I think more importantly are the points that you chose to gloss right over. Every low-carbon energy form is vigorously opposed by some environmental group the instant it is proposed in any given area.
I didn’t gloss right over, I didn’t see a need to address that comment. I don’t disagree with you on those issues.
>Don’t mistake my intent. I’m all for space exploration AND keeping our current standard of living. I’m just dubious when someone tells me how to live my life and they don’t change a thing in theirs. Do you get my point?
I got that the first time. See my quote above. My point is that you latched onto something trivial in the grand scheme of things. If you’re worried about AGW, how about pointing out antiquated processes at refineries burning off large quantities of fossil fuels rather than replacing the burn-off tanks with safer and cleaner technology? How much carbon dioxide is generated by tanks and Humvees in Iraq? By the way, for probes that monitor climate change on Earth, NASA and NOAA do that, and they’d do more but their budgets are controlled by the President and Congress.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:15 pm
“I simply put forward the point that the phrase denier is applicable in some cases.”
Mark, I agree. What concerns me is that it seems like some people are too prone to tar everyone the least bit questioning about AGW with the same brush. I’ve seen Mr. Gore do that a few too many times in interviews.
“… there is nothing wrong with ignorance. As long you are aware of it and open to learn. All of us are ignorant in some areas…”
Well, I have been and continue to read everything I can find on this subject, but sometimes it seems that if I don’t suddenly have a revelation and come over to the ‘good side’, I will continue to called ignorant. Asking questions and refining the theory of evolution is called good science, but questioning anything about AGW is treated like heresy….
“If you see it as name calling, well, boohoo to you”
I appreciate your recognition of my sensitve nature….
November 30th, 2006 at 7:28 pm
“Michael, what should I call them then?”
Some of ‘them’ are deniers; I certainly distrust the motives and logic of the ultra-religious anti-GW groups.
But is there no possibilty that a rational, informed, somewhat intelligent person could have legimate questions about AGW? Couldn’t they be called AGW skeptics?
I find it (pardon the expression) that if you ask about the MWP or the LIA, or about sunspots and solar output, or cosmic rays and cloud formation, you tend to get jumped on as a ‘denier’, a ‘tool of the polluters’, or some other type of heretic. You don’t get answers; you get a putdown.
November 30th, 2006 at 7:35 pm
Opps. I meant to say I find it chilling….
November 30th, 2006 at 7:54 pm
“So Max, exactly what science did Gore misrepresent in his movie?”
How about the sea level rising 20 feet? He presents this as if it’s what’s being predicted (as opposed to the IPCC’s 30 cm!), when it’s really an extreme worst case scenario - but of course most people don’t realize that. Someone posting here said ‘if the seas ONLY rise 20 feet’, and I suspect most readers here are somewhat more astute than average.
As British climate science Michael Hulme recently said: ‘The language of catastrophe is not the language of science.’
November 30th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
Actually, given enough warming over a long enough time period, that’s not entirely out of the question, and is not the most extreme possibility. That much of a sea level change represents a volume of ice on par with Greenland’s ice cover completely melting (along with normal thermal expansion). Even if Greenland doesn’t melt completely, there is still the possibility of input from Antarctic glaciers - though Antarctica is not as vulnerable as Greenland. Such large changes in sea level are not inconsistent with evidence of past climate changes, either.
Now, of course, even if this did happen, it wouldn’t be in the next five years or so. That much is certain. It wouldn’t be a short term catastrophic event like depicted in certain fictional Hollywood productions. But on timescales longer than that of a human life, it’s a different story. The ice-albedo positive feedback loop is powerful; don’t underestimate its potential. Given enough tine and enough forcing, our successors could lose a lot of real estate before its over.
Be careful with Hulme’s quote. Taking it too literally means science is incapable of talking about hurricanes, tsunamis, and asteroid strikes. Don’t forget that crowded theaters can catch fire.
December 1st, 2006 at 5:06 am
“Be careful with Hulme’s quote. Taking it too literally means science is incapable of talking about hurricanes, tsunamis, and asteroid strikes. Don’t forget that crowded theaters can catch fire.”
I think Hulme’s point is that the fact that crowded theaters CAN catch fire doesn’t make it okay to yell “Fire!” in a crowded theatre just because you THINK there’s a chance there COULD be a fire.
December 2nd, 2006 at 8:10 am
Everybody should pressure the NSTA directly. Add a message to this discussion on the NSTA discussion board: www.nsta.org/main/forum/showthread.php?t=1867. You can also register a complaint at www.nsta.org/feedback.
November 25th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
Hey Phil,
Congratulations on the interesting blog. I enjoyed your discussion about the “Face on Mars†stuff. Fascinating! And your posting on Dr. Carmona is an interesting discussion of the intersection of politics and science.
Concerning AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), I would like to know what you think about the recent comments of Robert F. Kennedy. He said that those who disagree with the consensus opinion on the subject (which as you know is that it is true and action must be taken) are “fascists†and “traitors†and should be treated as such. The penalty for treason is imprisonment or death.
What do you think about that? Should people who say that they do not believe in the AGW hypothesis be imprisoned or executed?
Keep up the good work on the blog!
Regards,
Guillermo