Guest Opinion by James Sawhill –
The Next Generation Science Standards provide two new science areas that teachers are to present, students are to learn, and for which K-12 US schools will be held accountable –
Weather and Climate and Earth and Human Activity
Recently, Jim Steele posted a piece here relating to A Framework For K-12 Science Education Practices, Crosscutting Concepts, and Core Ideas – That “Framework” language has recently morphed to this newer “Next Generation Science Standards”. To be clear, we’re addressing the same teaching and learning standards. The education industry seems to be searching for what they might better name this. Jim Steele was proposing a set of activities for science teachers and students using data and graphing for learning and recognizing that such activities are lacking in anything brought forward so far. I wish us to look at a specific target standard.
[References are cited with links provided at the end of the essay. I have provided more references than citations for any who would like to explore this complex territory.]
Background
In 2011, a consortium began to reconsider the 15 year old Common Core standards for K-12 education in the US and, for the first time, codify standards for science education. They now call these Next Generation Science Standards and they are linked to the original Common Core.
The original Common Core standards were limited to English/Language Arts and Mathematics. [1] Those standards are owned (by copyright) by the National Governor’s Association (NGA). In large part the NGA financed the efforts – albeit with federal funds and state taxes – and states were encouraged to adopt them and thereby become eligible for federal grants. I’ve included references [2], [3], and [4] at the end for any wishing to probe the density of the Common Core.
“The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by a consortium of 26 states and by the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the National Research Council, and Achieve, a nonprofit organization that was also involved in developing math and English standards. The final draft of the standards was released in April 2013” [5], [6]
“As of March 2014, eleven states had adopted the standards: California, Delaware, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Maryland, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oregon, Nevada, and Washington, along with the District of Columbia (D.C.)”. [5]
West Virginia and New Jersey have since adopted these standards while South Carolina and Wyoming have either blocked their adoption or sent consideration back to committee. Texas has decided to craft its own standards.
While adoptions to date amount to 25% of the States, there is mounting pressure from Departments of Education to have legislatures take up approval. These standards are politically and policy charged and may attract attention in upcoming US elections, although that I am aware, both Democrats and Republicans nationally have so far avoided the combination of climate and education.
Here’s a first “Standard” –
Climate Literacy: The Essential Principles of Climate Science
Guiding Principle: Humans can take actions to reduce climate change and its impacts
- Climate information can be used to reduce vulnerabilities or enhance the resilience of communities and ecosystems affected by climate change. Continuing to improve scientific understanding of the climate system and the quality of reports to policy and decision-makers is crucial.
- The impacts of climate change may affect the security of nations. Reduced availability of water, food, and land can lead to competition and conflict among humans, potentially resulting in large groups of climate refugees.
- Humans may be able to mitigate climate change or lessen its severity by reducing greenhouse gas concentrations through processes that move carbon out of the atmosphere or reduce greenhouse gas emissions.
- A combination of strategies is needed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The most immediate strategy is conservation of oil, gas, and coal, which we rely on as fuels for most of our transportation, heating, cooling, agriculture, and electricity. Short-term strategies involve switching from carbon-intensive to renewable energy sources, which also requires building new infrastructure for alternative energy sources. Long-term strategies involve innovative research and a fundamental change in the way humans use energy.
- Humans can adapt to climate change by reducing their vulnerability to its impacts. Actions such as moving to higher ground to avoid rising sea levels, planting new crops that will thrive under new climate conditions, or using new building technologies represent adaptation strategies. Adaptation often requires financial investment in new or enhanced research, technology, and infrastructure.
- Actions taken by individuals, communities, states, and countries all influence climate. Practices and policies followed in homes, schools, businesses, and governments can affect climate. Climate-related decisions made by one generation can provide opportunities as well as limit the range of possibilities open to the next generation. Steps toward reducing the impact of climate change may influence the present generation by providing other benefits such as improved public health infrastructure and sustainable built environments. [13]
There’s a lot more in other Standards, but this should be a good first bite. Plus here’s the “Climate Literacy” booklet each kid will get – I encourage you to download a copy.
www.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/common_documents/climate_literacy_booklet.pdf [10]
Implications and Reactions
An early criticism appeared in the NY Times at the time of the release of the Next Generation Science Standards:
“The focus would be helping students become more intelligent science consumers by learning how scientific work is done.” and “Leaders of the effort said that teachers may well wind up covering fewer subjects, but digging more deeply into the ones they do cover. In some cases, traditional classes like biology and chemistry may disappear entirely from high schools, replaced by courses that use a case-study method to teach science in a more holistic way”. [11], [my bold]
More concern from James Rust at masterresource.org:
“However, it is clear not only that human activities play a major role in climate change but also that impacts of climate change—for example, increased frequency of severe storms due to ocean warming—have begun to influence human activities. The prospect of future impacts of climate change due to further increases in atmospheric carbon is prompting consideration of how to avoid or restrict such increases”.
“Even greater dangers from the science portion are teaching people to accept the political use of science and not follow fundamental principles of scientific inquiry – propose a theory about the behavior of Nature and continually test that theory by experiment”. [12] [my bold]
UK Precedent against Propaganda (we’re not alone in the US)
About the time that the new US Standards were released, The Global Warming Policy Foundation issued a report, Climate Control—Brainwashing In Schools. [15]
Statements in the Report’s Executive Summary are as follows:
“We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools encourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.
In the main body of the report is the statement, ‘The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has suggested that a focus on children is the top priority for bringing about societal change, and that by ‘sensitizing’ children to climate change, it will be possible to them to ‘shame adults into taking the right steps’”. [15]
Shame on us. And, please move to higher ground.
References
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Core_State_Standards_Initiative
[2] http://www.corestandards.org/
[3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_model
[4] http://www.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/common_documents/stem/030/standards.html
[5] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_Generation_Science_Standards
[6] http://www.achieve.org/next-generation-science-standards
[7] http://www.nextgenscience.org/search-standards
[8] http://www.nextgenscience.org/msess-wc-weather-climate
[9] http://www.nextgenscience.org/ms-ess3-5-earth-and-human-activity
[10] www.pbs.org/teacherline/courses/common_documents/climate_literacy_booklet.pdf
[12] https://www.masterresource.org/debate-issues/common-core-climate-indoctrination/
By James Rust — April 21, 2014
Attention Anthony and Robin. This is one of the most important posts you (Anthony) have put up on this site. Is there any chance that Robin, who posts here. could also do a guest post (if that is okay with Robin!). I have been following her work for some time and she is on top of this issue. Anyway, well done to everyone concerned.
Well, at the least the new standards wouldn’t ban the use of certain words, like they did in Florida to ban the use of “climate” and “change” in the government offices, or in North Carolina when they threw out a 60 year plan report since it didn’t bode well for beach property owners and lessors, and instead opted for a 30 year plan which looked a little better on that front.
I”m admittedly impatient, but since no reply above can one of you scientists answer this for me? (edited better)
@milodonharlani– Can you cite a single example in history where a landmass the size of the united states experienced record snow – in record time- and temperatures above the average by roughly 20 degrees (i’ll go find the data if you really need me to but most of us experienced one or the other) while the other side of said land mass experienced one its lowest precipitation rates and record winter temperatures roughly 20 degrees ABOVE the average? If so, I will never bother you guys again and go buy a Ferrari. Now… add in the fact that Sao Paulo, in the opposing hemisphere also suffered from the same level of drought, if not more so. Please show that this is a regular event in history and I will then accept your argument and not Megan, Megan’s.
I’d even do another 911S.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/07/14/newly-found-weather-records-show-1930s-as-being-far-worse-than-the-present-for-extreme-weather/
you can start here. i’m sure the more informed and scientifically knowledgeable know how to debunk your little argument more thoroughly. Have a good night.
Thank you. First of all it’s not an argument, it’s a developing concern based on actual observations, and not anyone’s model. I don’t prefer more of them (extreme events or bad models, scientific or economic). However, I haven’t gone back and done the work to see how common this is. The referenced article though only addresses record heat temps and not a corresponding record low temp in the same part of the country in the same month. In other words, the article provides evidence of previous hot years/summers for the US but not widely diverging weather conditions in the same time frame. I add Sao Paulo since it was fairly ignored, but also extreme and also causally related to deforestation around Sao Paulo and the relative proximity of the Amazon deforestation. Hence an advance argument that this related to man made in that case, but less relevant perhaps to CO2 emissions than desertification.
*correction– same country, not same part of country*
There’s a lot of bad science promulgated on this site by both sides of the debate, but that is possibly one of the most absurd arguments (and it is an argument, don’t pretend otherwise) that I can recall. I suggest you answer these two questions:
When in history has the weather in a large area been “average” for the entire area?
When in history has the weather NOT been unseasonably warm in one area while unseasonably cold in another area?
The answer to both questions is “never”.
I was watching the game the other night and the announcer came up with some absurd stat about the last time a team in the league had seven rookies with one or more points in the third period in the first round of the playoffs on a team that finished below .500 in the regular season and had a rookie head coach was xx years ago. I couldn’t help but laugh. That stat is no more meaningful than your question.
the temperatures in the US were not extreme this winter relation to heat in the West or cold in the East. For the East for instance there has been more extreme cold temperatures and even more extended average cold temperatures even in the last 25 years. For California there was a drought that started in 1910 that lasted over 20 years. You can do your best to try to find ground station reporting from that era but it’s no really important. The important part here is that current science can’t predict climate for more than 2 weeks with any kind of real certainty. The main proxies of the co2 hypothesis never materialized for about 30 years. The computer models have completely failed. The amplification of heating through a feedback system hasn’t happened. The direct heat forcing of co2 is not what the hypothesis is concerned with and certainly not the models or the unethical propaganda that is absurd at this point. From climatic observation is is pretty clear that this amount of co2 has very little if any affect on climate. Nothing to be alarmed about.
David– Seriously, argument or not, peace or war, I see it and I panic. Roughly, just roughly, the east coast was 20 degrees colder than it’s average, and the west was 20 degrees higher than it’s average. While there will always be variability around the averages, yes, of course, I agree. But not only that extreme, but in the opposite direction? That is an absurd inquiry? Are you not fascinated if it is an anomaly? You’d think there would be generally warm years, some parts more than others, and generally cold years… but this is extreme to me. All I am asking is help in figuring it out, or if it’s fairly typical experience and I’ve been tricked by the focus on polar vortexes and meridional flows (something i had never heard of until I saw it in the Economist). Forget all my other posts, just this one. Please.
I’m hoping you just mad up the 20 f difference in mean winter. temp on both coasts. That’s not even close. good night again lol
Charlie–Look at the chart below in the attached link. 97% in the west, hottest, 0% in the east coldest. That is not normal. That is extreme. Show me why you say it’s not, and again, I’m talking hitting the 5% extreme bands in the same year. No words, no cites from this site, just give me the data.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/regional_overview
Charlie– I didn’t make it up, I rounded at best, it was in the Wall St. Journal. Look at the chart, I don’t follow all of the blocks, but I don’t think I’m color blind, red is hot, blue is cold. Box above is region. How many time in the same year has this happened and if “many” or even a few, is it scattered, trending, or mainly in the 30’s or 20’s. I don’t care when, just as long as it not getting worse now.
http://www.accuweather.com/en/us/new-york-ny/10007/month/349727?monyr=1/01/2015
actual temps in NYC this winter.
Okay, David. Now I’m mad. I’m asking a simple question and I’m pretty sure this time I’m asking it nicely, and your reply is this: “When in history has the weather NOT been unseasonably warm in one area while unseasonably cold in another area?
The answer to both questions is “never”.”
That implies that every year if one part of the country is unseasonably warm than the other “area” has to be unseasonably cold. And I’m absurd? Has there never ever ever ever been a year that was colder for the whole country than the previous trailing 10, 20, 30 year average? Never ever? Does everyone think it’s an absurd question I’m asking a group of climate and meteorologist enthusiasts? Or is never is an absurd answer? Nonetheless, it’s still a question that can be supported by data, like the chart I linked so can someone please find a way to get the same data but for ideally 70 years.
Charlie- Thanks, probably need a wider data field than NYC and my friends there had a better winter than Boston, but you (me) can’t cherry pick Boston either. It seems more that there were a number of days that hit close to 20 below the historical average, but the average itself for the 3 month couldn’t be -20. The chart though still ranks it as an extreme, but I’m off on the 20 statement. Will dig up the WSJ article later. Good night.
Leland Neraho April 24, 2015 at 9:12 pm
That implies that every year if one part of the country is unseasonably warm than the other “area” has to be unseasonably cold.
Neither weather nor climate respect a country’s borders. I didn’t say “a country”. I said “a large area”. If the large area is the earth, then for the average temperature to remain stable (which it is) that statement must be true. If it were NOT true, then the average temperature would in fact NOT be stable. The climate system on a global basis has considerable variability in it, and that is all that you are observing in this case. But the average changes by only hundredths of a degree from one year to the next.
There were recent record snow falls in the mid east. It got so cold in Siberia that natural gas pipelines froze solid. In Winnipeg a couple of years ago it was so cold that the sewers froze solid and the ground was SO cold that they wouldn’t have thawed before the next winter, so they had to run massive electric currents through them to melt them, something that had never been needed to be done ever before. Antarctic sea ice is at record extent. All these things have happened in the current decade. When have all those things ever happened in less than half a decade before?
The temperature of the planet over that course of time was, well, pretty average. My cherry picked events no more portend an ice age, nor attest to the effects of CO2, than do yours.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/regional_overview
this seems to only cover 2014 (extreme as we all know from western regions hitting peaks, and eastern hitting lows if you set to Ded-Feb time series), but I can’t seem to find out how to toggle or get the full data dump to run a variance comparison to go back.
If you just hang around here (or even search the archives), I think you’ll find any answer you are looking for.
You can stop when you are satisfied, or you can keep asking questions.
Got anything better to do ?
It’s still just one question, but getting closer. Cellar is only half empty so apparently I have more time on this.
Everybody knows the answer, somebody has to ask the question.
Take your time.
Leland in case you miss a reply upstream
@leland who says “Can you cite a single example in history where a landmass the size of the united states experience record snow – in record time- and temperatures above the average by roughly 20 degrees (i’ll go find if you really need me to) while the other side of said land mass experience one its lowest precipitation rates and record winter temperatures roughly 20 degrees ABOVE the average?”
First what is your point? Are you suggesting the uniform blanket of CO2 radiatively heats up the west coast by 20 degrees and cools the east by 20 degrees? There is no physics that could support such a silly notion. But that pattern is easily explained by advection of warm and cold air with air masses constrained by the jet stream and modulated by the position of the Pacific High pressure system, which is a function of the Hadley cell, El Nino/La Nina and interactions with the polar cell.
Maybe you are suggesting rising CO2 causes the wavy jet stream? Most climate scientists don’t think it does. Historical evidence would not support that suggestions either. SImilar patterns have been seen as the oceans undergo natural regime shits as in 1934 setting up the dust bowl, or 1977 or today. Read The worst North American drought year of the last millennium: 1934 by
Cook et al. (2014)
Here’s a picture from newspapers in 1977 trying to explain very similar temperature patterns (from Steve Goddard’s site). 1977 was a severe California drought year while Boston “record snow”.
http://landscapesandcycles.net/image/103477951.gif
Its all well documented natural variability.
The new climate standards ( and alarmists) are trying to turn students into natural climate change deniers.
Jim- thanks, this is great, not the statistics I was looking for but spot on re concept. I’m not suggesting anything re CO2 either way, I’m trying to statistically understand current weather extremes that are “alarming”. So your response is very helpful, and I guess should be obvious to me in that the jet-stream wasn’t suddenly untethered. But the chart I attached that shows quartiles still puts this period at one of the higher extremes of polarity, so I wanted to compare with data, not pictures. However, I also referenced the coincident drought in Sao Paulo (and yes, only parts of Australia not every province or whatever they call them) to see if we’d every experienced that type of coincident global extreme. Still getting mostly pictures and articles, not data.
Hang on, Chemistry and Physics?? It took 2 years of senior school to get a reasonable grounding in these.
The pseudo-science of alGoreism can be taught in a 2 hour movie. That’s it – “CO2 is a GHG with feedbacks (we don’t know what they are and have never observed their effect but they’re 97% sure they’re there), and every storm (whether snow or wind) is probably caused or worsened, plus drought, Ebola and asthma.” That’s it. That’s all there is in the Church of Climatology. What will they do with all that time?
What will they do with all that time?
Require epistemology and explication of manifest. The usual.
It’s excellent training, too. I was continually subjected to the immersion treatment. They can teach you intellectual streetfighting, but, ultimately, they can’t decide whom you choose to fight. And they, themselves, are the very best of targets for their own weapons.
As Mark Twain said,
“All schools, all colleges have two great functions: to confer, and to conceal valuable knowledge.”
Okay, so I”m completely exaggerating the 20 degrees, it’s the combined variance from the mean that is 20 degrees, not 40 (I guess that should be obvious) as I was recalling. So NYC was 9.2 below the Feb historical mean and Calif was 9-10 above. I would expect though that this is still extreme from a climatologist’s perspective, but I’ll wait for the climatologists to show up.
Intellicast has a nice feature where besides getting current data for any location, they also have a link for “past observations”. I have been using that to observe what has been going on worldwide for the last 5 months. Mostly what I am seeing is that the warming is confined to higher nighttime temperatures. Lately as in this month, many areas and regions are showing below average highs. Take a look at Australian locations. Russia is also experiencing below average highs. Much of Europe is experiencing below average highs. This month is going to be quite different from the first 3 months, and will end with a lowering of global temps. That makes sense to me as I have been watching quite a change in global wind patterns over the last several weeks in particular. There is change in the air.
In any case, the “extreme weather” meme that Warmists like to use is a red herring. For the unwary, and the less bright, the suggestion is that our CO2 is magically affecting the weather via the jet stream. The pea in their little 3-card Monte game is warming. Watch the pea.
Not worthy of a reply.
Correction. Not worthy of a response. I did reply.
FWIW, I agree with Leland Neraho that it can get just plain old globally warmer or globally cooler on a grand scale. Certainly on the U/M/L T and SAT levels.
Leland Neraho :
(1)
===========
David–
“Seriously, argument or not, peace or war, I see it and I panic” – Leland Neraho
===========
Alprazolam was designed to help with that kind of irrational problem. Look it up.
(2)
=========
“All I am asking is help in figuring it out [recent temperature differential between east and north west coasts of North America], or if it’s fairly typical experience and I’ve been tricked by the focus on polar vortexes and meridional flows (something i had never heard of until I saw it in the Economist). Forget all my other posts, just this one. Please.
=========
I don’t have answer. But I have a few relevant clues that might help you find one…
Exhibit A – Map of the Laurentide Ice Sheet during the previous ice age:
http://www.sonoma.edu/users/f/freidel/global/fig%20113.2.JPG
* (note that Alaska was an ice-free “warm” sanctuary)
Exhibit B – “Polar Vortex” 2014 over the formerly glaciated regions of North America:
http://raymondklaassen.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/pv.jpg
Exhibit C – Alaska during the “polar vortex”:
http://www.adn.com/article/20140129/forget-polar-vortex-how-alaska-dealing-its-heat-wave
The reason why you never heard of “meridional flow” is because it wasn’t woven into global warming narrative until after the fact.
However, in 2000–15 years ago–the United Nations Fisheries and Aquaculture organization predicted that a meridional pattern of circulation would start to dominate, starting around 2004, marking the end of a ~ 30 year period of natural “global warming.”
They employed a pattern matching model that didn’t incorporate the magical forcing power of the carbon dioxide molecule. And they were right, as you can surely see.
It seems reasonable to assume that the “meridional flow” was more or less permanent feature during previous ice ages.
Nice map on the Laurentide ice sheets. I wonder then if the meridional flow is also a function of grand minimum events?
@ur momisuglyKHw– thanks, but doesn’t answer my question and only makes me more concerned since the attached article shows kids playing in the street (not the science reference I was hoping for) and that Jan was a record high temp for Alaska. Another extreme, and not good for their highways, which cost a lot of money and makes bond holders nervous.
“because it wasn’t woven into the conversation until after…” is another way of saying perhaps someone learned something new. Italics also reveal bias in favor of curiosity (hence my other nasty posts- I don’t like inherent bias in the form of italics). Specifically for Calif and Boston, the persistent high pressure ridged @ur momisugly or around Alaska is the reason for the weather extremes and it would be really helpful to understand for me if 2-3 years of the same condition is just a statistical aberration, happened in the 70’s 42-44 and 1932 etc., or is evidence that we better start learning something new. But toilette-to-tap is not the kind of world I want to live in.
I also don’t understand the reference to past ice ages, yes, they demonstrate what his possible, but I think what others are focused on is the new variables that man is entering into the equation instead of volcanoes or dolphin migrations. Certainly those new variables could be helpful– higher crop production, more stable temps, more arable land–but observing the past few years I don’t see them as being helpful and in fact quite economically destructive (check almond price trends around Sept). Finally, where the medication will come in, what if we are in a “cooling” period in all other aspects/conditions/oscillations and if it weren’t for higher PPM we’d be in a mini ice-age (so that’s good, yes?), but when those conditions flip and combine AGW we’d be kinda effed, no?
Global Warming: The following questions need an answer:
1. How accurate is the average temperature curve constructed based on interpolations and extrapolations over around 80% of the area where no continuous data series are not available; and where data are available, there is a large difference in density of network – for example in urban areas the density is high and in rural areas the density is low and both areas present large scale changes in land use and land cover patterns with the time.
2. How much is the contribution to the global temperature curve by (1) anthropogenic greenhouse gases, (2) land use & land cover changes, and (3) other factors.
3. Is global warming synonymous to climate change? Or Global warming is a small part of Climate Change?
4. Is climate refers to Temperature only? If not, all other climate parameters are controlled by temperature or other parameters also control the temperature over and above the natural Sun related seasonal & diurnal changes and local changes associated with topographic conditions? For example, just as that of evaporation or evapotranspiration estimates using Thornthwaite model and Penman’s Model.
5. Is natural variability a part of changes in meteorological parameters such as temperature & precipitation?
6. Is natural variability is part of changes in temperature in the Ocean waters and surface temperatures?
7. Why there are step-wise temperature changes since 1851 to date? Is it due to rise in global average temperature synchronized by natural 60-year cyclic variation in temperature?
8. What is the real term impact of local general circulation related impacts on averaging to get global average temperature?
From AR5 “It is extremely likely that more than half of the observed increase in global average surface temperature from 1951 to 2010 was caused by the anthropogenic increase in greenhouse gas concentrations and other anthropogenic forcings together. The best estimate of the human-induced contribution to warming is similar to the observed warming over this period”. That means, 50.1% is also more than half; but it not only includes anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations and also by other anthropogenic forcings. That means the anthropogenic greenhouse gas component is still less than 50%. They are all qualitative but we need an answer in quantitative terms to postulate the associated impact on glaciers retreat, ice sheet melt, ocean rise, etc.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Thank you Dr. Statistically your replay contains more questions than answers for me so looks like we’re still learning.
Leland if your question as question as written in one of your replies.
I’m not suggesting anything re CO2 either way, I’m trying to statistically understand current weather extremes that are “alarming”.
well in recent time our weather globally has not been extreme. in fact it has been quite boring. It is easy to find out this weather data at Noaa and other data sites. The truth is that the amount and severity of droughts right now globally is down. the cyclones are down globally in intensity and numbers globally. Some places have experienced warmer than average temps recently like n Alaska and some some below average like in Eastern Canada. Those kind of temperature phases have always been happening. also the small sea ice loss in the arctic is filled in by the ice gain in the Antarctic. We have only measured sea ice by satellite since 1979.
I realize the power of suggestion is very strong in environmental issues. i used to run with a gang of surfers that would all think the earth is changing drastically. They really felt it. This contrived virtue is a jedi mind trick of sorts it is not reality. it is fear mongering and this weird fabricate morality that the climate change alarmists use. There is nothing there scientifically.You have to try to be objective. Furthermore co2 is not a pollutant in itself. Our levels have gone from 270 to 400 parts per million since 1900 and that is still low form an ecological standpoint. Our vegetation actually still wants a lot more co2. The whole issue is based on politics. It has nothing to do with scientific eviidence. There is nothing there and the propaganda is fraud.
Charlie– thanks, but in looking at the posts and articles on this site, I thought it was science oriented and therefore data based and I could find such data to support things like what you state, “Droughts right now are globally down..” Vs what, when? Correlated how? Weather has not been globally extreme… I have no data whatsoever, but it wouldn’t surprise that hurricanes are down, or up, no matter what Jim, Steve, or Dr. Pauchari says. I do know that Boston received record snow, yes, and that’s not a big deal in itself, but it did so in 4-5 weeks, like a rocket launch from no snow in Dec vs the previous two highest were gradual builds over the season. Okay? this is fact. I find it interesting, alarming, valid, potentially revealing etc., that this is the same exact period that Calif experienced extreme low snowfall (makes sense if the jetstream gets waiver but why and how much more or less wavier than past wavier times i.e. is it related to warmer ocean temps in the North and therefore narrow temp bands between the polar and NA latitudes), and in the same month that Sao Paulo had 3% reservoir levels. Okay? I don’t need pictures, I don’t articles, I don’t need comments, I need data. Who has it?
you can go to Noaa for almost all that data Lelenad. You can also go to the national huriccanne center for historical cyclone data. There are huge summarized data sets of of many proxies at Noaa.
http://www.nhc.noaa.gov/
noaa.gov
here’s a link to drought data http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historical-palmers/psi/191004-192603
just do your homework. It is not hard to see what is really going on here.
Holistic : Dealing with something as a whole not just a part.
Teaching science in a holistic way?
Easy. It goes like this : Teacher – “this morning, children, I am going to teach you the whole of science …..”.
Eco brainwashing leaves pupils wide open to Islamic extremist brainwashing. Once pupils learn not to dare to question one thing they are told by a “respected ” authority on one subject they are certainly not going to question what they are told by an often more respected authority on a religious viewpoint that hold far more than a passing similarity to it. Man is evil. man is greedy. Man must be punished. the motivation is the same and the message is the same.
Some pretty nice tired political strawmen arguments from the alarmists on this thread. The classic “Americans are so stupid” or” American still believe Jesus is the son of God” its really ground breaking stuff here. Especially when coming from a poster that lives in country where the population is even more religious per capita and fundamentally.
next coming will be there ever original fox news, koch brothers. or evil right win capitalist thing most likely. Then maybe back to the “stupid Americans that ruined the world even though they are inferior” to recap.
Well, you can lead a climalarmist troll to knowledge, but you can’t make him think.
You mean you can’t make them think the way you want them to think. Still don’t have any data. We just went through one of the biggest economic disruptions and models were off, real estate agents and builders were confident nothing is changing, yet this time is different, etc. and I made money betting against them all. Using data, and assessing group mental attachments to an existing world that felt good. Then said world changed. So it’s possible, yes? But I’m not ready to make such bets until I get the data. Fox News, Koch Bros, are irrelevant. Stupid americans are a constant variable you can count on though.
Charlie– see above. When someone mentions eco brainwashing and Islamic brainwashing it’s a pretty strong signal this isn’t a science website. It’s grumpy old men. BIFN.
you can think whatever you want but you have no data to prove this theory. Environmentalism as in the political movement is an ideology not a science. grumpy old men. nah. there is plenty of science discussed here even by real scientists. If the world had changed that’s fine. The scientific method hasn’t changed though. I have only been alive 35 years. Old men have experience and wisdom that we don’t. i have lived in this country you seem to think you know everything about for 35 years. I have also traveled extensively. trendy idealism and snarky hatred of this or that comes and goes like bell bottom jeans. The truth of the matter is that there is no science here, just scam artists and people like you to take the bait willingly because you feel you are part of a cause.
Klimatjungen.
Exactly.
Homogenization.
Homogenization.
That ain’t the way to have fun, Son!
gads.
Great News. Remember the University of WA. I remember writing to the Minister Pine, to ask for their research results to be open. He said he couldn’t force them to release them.
HOWEVER, Dr Bjorn Lomborg has come to Australia and setting up a Think Tank at the University of WA, and funded by the government and other interested parties. And aren’t they cranky. News.com had an article today, saying ‘Why are we funding this man’..Controversial views eh, so the journalist stated. And the U.WA. We have Ph.D students that might be compromised. Sure – they would. So – let’s see how he goes in a hostile academic sphere. The truth may out. They are bitter the Commission on Climate Change was one of the first to have their funding axed by the coalition government, and Tim Flannery set up another from private funding. I don’t hear much about them now, maybe they have run out of money. Hopefully, busy writing books again that will be outdated. LOL.
And here we go. Reminds of Honeckers DDR, the Ceaucescu’s Securitate Romania.
Every student’s an IM, an ‘Informeller Mitarbeiter’ – an inofficial undercover Agent reporting on the minds of his commilitones to the green agenda.
The propagated case, ’cause’ isn’t science at all – just reasoning an unbased green partisan mindset.
The romantic german way:
integration by downscaling yourself by getting a Schildbürger.
good luck – stay away. But small chance.
As Karl Kraus puts it, ‘Die verfolgende UNschuld’:
‘the hunting innocence’.
Regards – Hans
Schildbürger, the emperors new clothes – fairy tales. yes. NO! ARCHETYPES!
Hercules, the everlasting working man. Prometheus, the bringer of fire. Atlas shoulders the burdens. Thor, the sentinel. Captain America – fill in with respect to our host.
archetypes are the tools and shields, armour in dire times.
Hans
Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
This is one of the most important issues – how our children are being educated.
To make an assumption that “the climate science is settled” is one thing. To build our children’s science education on this premise is nothing short of teaching them that the principles of science are optional. Webster’s 1913 Dictionary defines “science” as ” Knowledge; knowledge of principles and causes; ascertained truth of facts. ”
It is clear to many, and to most WUWT readers/followers that the very basis of science that we learnt and accepted, has been seriously compromised. The principle of observation/meaurements, hypothesis, proofs, challenges addressed, and the test of falsibility being applicable, has been conveniently altered. In its place we have hypothesis, some proofs, (ones that appear to support the hypothesis), ignoring, denying or censoring any challenges, and similarly doing the latter to any and all evidence that actually falisifies the original hypothesis. The “truth of facts” has not been satisfactorily ascertained. This is so blatant that is beyond the comprehension of this educated person that such a process can take place, remain in place and even become an accepted procedure in our education systems.
Also accepted by governments and other, with the result that major upheavals in financial and political structures are having a direct adverse effect on civilization as a whole.
In this post, the word “brainwashing” appears, that is exactly what is happening and it is having enormous ramifications.
A pertinent extract:
“We find instances of eco-activism being given a free rein within schools and at the events schools aencourage their pupils to attend. In every case of concern, the slant is on scares, on raising fears, followed by the promotion of detailed guidance on how pupils should live, as well as on what they should think.
In the main body of the report is the statement, ‘The chairman of the IPCC, Rajendra Pachauri has suggested that a focus on children is the top priority for bringing about societal change, and that by ‘sensitizing’ children to climate change, it will be possible to them to ‘shame adults into taking the right steps’”. [15]
Two distinct issues – unsubstantiated claims are being taught, and science is being adulterated.