Shock Study: Some School Students are Still Taught about Climatic Natural Variation

Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th-century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

Galileo before the Holy Office, a 19th-century painting by Joseph-Nicolas Robert-Fleury

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A study published in Science reveals that a number of teachers are rebelling against Federal education directives – that a significant number of school teachers are failing to indoctrinate their students with the politically approved position on climate change, or worse, are teaching students that there are forcings other than CO2, which might be driving changes in global temperature.

According to the Washington Post;

A major new survey of U.S. middle school and high school science teachers has found that across the country, a majority are teaching about climate change in their classrooms — but a significant percentage are also including incorrect ideas, such as the notion that today’s warming of the globe is a “natural” process.

The study, published in Science Thursday by Eric Plutzer of Penn State University and a number of collaborators from Wright State University and the National Center for Science Education — which supports the teaching of evolution and climate change in schools — consisted of a mail survey of 1,500 teachers nationwide. They included both middle school science teachers and also high school biology, chemistry, physics and Earth sciences teachers, since it wasn’t entirely clear which classes might cover the subject (unlike evolution, which clearly belongs in biology class, climate change stretches across many disciplines).

One of the most striking findings: 30 percent of teachers said in the survey that they tell students that the current warming “is likely due to natural causes” — contradicting major scientific assessments of the matter. Thirty-one percent of teachers also said that they include both the scientific consensus position — that global warming is human-caused — but then also a “natural causes” position that contradicts it, thus presenting “both sides,” in the study’s words.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2016/02/11/how-teachers-are-getting-it-wrong-on-climate-change/

The abstract of the study;

Climate confusion among U.S. teachers

Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2) and most of the general public accepts that climate change is occurring, only about half of U.S. adults believe that human activity is the predominant cause (3), which is the lowest among 20 nations polled in 2014 (4). We examine how this societal debate affects science classrooms and find that, whereas most U.S. science teachers include climate science in their courses, their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching. Mirroring some actors in the societal debate over climate change, many teachers repeat scientifically unsupported claims in class. Greater attention to teachers’ knowledge, but also values, is critical.

Read more: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664

From the study itself;

… Although most students will hear something about climate change in a science class, the median teacher devotes only 1 to 2 hours to the topic (table S7), inconsistent with guidance from leading science and education bodies [e.g., (9)]. Of course, quality of instruction is more important than quantity, so we turn to how students are introduced to climate change science.

MIXING MESSAGES. Notably, 30% of teachers emphasize that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” and 12% do not emphasize human causes (half of whom do not emphasize any explanation and thereby avoid the topic altogether). Of teachers who teach climate change, 31% report sending explicitly contradictory messages, emphasizing both the scientific consensus that recent global warming is due to human activity and that many scientists believe recent increases in temperature are due to natural causes (see the first chart). Why might this be the case? Some teachers may wish to teach “both sides” to accommodate values and perspectives that students bring to the classroom (6, 10). Beyond that, the survey data allow us to evaluate three explanations.

Our data suggest that, especially for political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice. Education efforts will need to draw on science communication research and acknowledge resistance to accepting the science and addressing its root causes (17, 18). College and university instructors will need help reaching teachers and teachers-in-training who bring diverse political and value commitments to the classroom—particularly in avoiding “boomerang effects,” in which attempts to promote a particular view can instead harden opposition. …

Read more (paywalled): http://science.sciencemag.org/content/351/6274/664.full

Where will this end? Everyone knows that scientific knowledge advances when everyone agrees the same settled position, that questioning established viewpoints, or dissent from politically approved ideas, is anti-scientific, and should be punished somehow.

232 thoughts on “Shock Study: Some School Students are Still Taught about Climatic Natural Variation

  1. Read this earlier today, Seems like there is some hope yet. Perhaps the teachers, though likely not the administrators and bureaucrats, are more conservative than popularly believed. Still too many kids be brainwashed though.

    • I hate not being able to edit these. “.” after “today” …. “being” not “be” – unless you be down wid ebonics.

      • Without actually paying to read the study, I wonder how many of the 30% teaching both sides have tenure and how many are willing to speak the truth but chance loosing their teaching positions due to a lack of tenure. (Ten Year)

      • Way to dig deeper Bryan. My father died young and I was too much of a young punk to listen to him much. One of the few things that he preached that stuck was to accumulate wealth and live a lifestyle that enabled me to have f__k you money. It took time to understand what he preached.

        Thanks for triggering my memory of him.

    • I am more worried about the notion that the government is telling science teachers what to teach! That is a very bad idea form the start.

  2. Thanks to science teachers who uphold the principles of science against the anti-scientific Warmunista Mafia. More power to them.

    • Absolutely correct. A true teacher gives the students both sides of any given issue and the confidence and ability to think for themselves. The key question, should a teacher indoctrinate or promote free thought?

      • Glen Haas
        “A true teacher gives the students both sides of any given issue and the confidence and ability to think for themselves. ”
        That is only true to a degree. Do you really think that we should be telling kids the world is flat, or that it is only three thousand years old, or that we never landed on the moon? Some things are beyond discussion

      • Simon, once upon a time, the government position was that the world was flat and the radical thinking was that of the rounder. Even today there are flat earther’s. They are adamant in their position against overwhelming evidence to the contrary. Not unlike warmingist who claim that science is settled and not debatable. That – to not believe – that CO2 is catastrophically destroying the earth is to be a “climate change denier” or worse a “science denier.’
        To tell kids that there was once a government held belief in a flat earth and a current government held belief in CAGW along with real science is giving them the whole story and not beyond discussion. Why would you fear telling children that the government along with religions, has throughout history, supported pseudo-science for political purposes.

      • An excellent way to introduce the concept.

        Indeed, this leads to all types of growth discussions including teaching them the art of investing. By the time the masses agree that something is a sure thing, it becomes the thing to avoid.

      • Not necessarily preaching a “Flat Earth” or “Young Earth” or “Moon Hoax” but certainly informing them that there are Nut Cases out there who will try to convince them the Earth is Flat or the Earth is only 6000 years old or the Moon Landing was a Government/Hollywood Hoax or that CO2 drives Climate Change above all other possible natural influences.

        Hopefully they will also teach those same young minds that when the Climate Data stops conforming to the Model Output and ceases to toe the line, adjustments are made to the Data so that it comes into agreement with the Modeled predictions.

      • Simon,

        ” Some things are beyond discussion”

        According to whom though? You? The President? The mass media talking heads? The IPCC? Social justice warriors? Whom?

        I think it is harmful for a child to be taught that “the authorities” are always to be trusted/believed without question.

      • Simon! Good grief, man! The teacher should NOT teach the students, “The world is round.” What are they, parrots? The teacher should point out the curved shadow of the Earth on the Moon; the way ships disappear over the horizon hull-first (the meaning of the phrase, “hull-down”) just the way a person vanishes gradually around a curving wall; and should arrange with a “sister school” due south on the same meridian for both classes to measure the lengths of the shadows of matching poles at the same time.

        You are advocating indoctrination, not teaching. It’s just as wrong when the content happens to be correct, as it is when the content is wrong; possibly more so.

      • “Simon, once upon a time, the government position was that the world was flat and the radical thinking was that of the rounder.”

        Bill, I agree with your main point, that government is a biased and non-objective source of truth in general. However, it’s just not true that there was a consensus among governments mid second-millenium , etc. that the earth was flat.That’s a modern myth about older government myths.

        To which I say (ironically of course), that’s a nice myth you got there; be a shame if something happened to it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Myth_of_the_flat_Earth

      • Whenever people start throwing “the world is flat,” and “the earth is only three (sic) thousand years old,” and the “we never landed on the moon” straw men around, you know you’re dealing with Darwinists protecting their home base.

        Any open-air discussion of the evidence that debunks their theory — which claims that naturalistic mechanisms have been proven to account for the rise of and diversity of life — for the creation myth that it is, must be disallowed by any rhetorical (“creationists!”) or legal (Dover) means necessary. The climate change alarmists are merely attempting to follow on the Darwinists’ well-worn footpath.

      • “A true teacher gives the students both sides of any given issue”

        A large part of education revolves around reducing complex facts to a ‘soundbite’ which can be disseminated in class, and parroted in exams. Best example is what we are told about who invented what. In most cases the truth is that the alleged inventor didn’t invent the device at all, only commercialised it. To cover the complex series of developments which for example made the telephone or radio possible would take too long, and would not be a suitable exam question. So, the truth is bent a bit, and a single ‘super-inventor’ made to replace the many who actually contributed.

        Climate is one of the most complex areas of science, and giving a balanced view on it would take way too long for the classroom.

    • Come now, none of that nonsense. 95% of Christians despise the Ku Klux Klan and thought the Irish Catholic/Protestant war in the 1990s was ridiculous.

      It still happened because 5% of the major religions is still a lot of people.

      • Another way to truthfully state that is 97% of Climate Scientists give 99.7% of all other Scientists a bad name

    • kokoda,
      I doubt that number since thousands of Muslims are getting murdered by fellow muslims since they are of the wrong sect of Muslims

    • A high proportion of Nazis either did not know of the extermination camps, or did not approve of them. That did not alter the fact that they’d heard their leader say he would commit these atrocities, and did not act to stop them from being implemented. The consequence of WW2 was that Nazi-ism was outlawed.

      The Koran instructs Muslims to kill apostates, among other crimes. How many Muslims are endeavouring to stop this?

  3. Sad! Sad! Sad! Are we going to get re-education camps as in China, or are we going to brand non-believers as Kafirs. Its sad how some of these same liberal academics can rail about Madrassas teaching Islamic orthodoxy, yet insist on teaching only AGW orthodoxy.

    • “Are we going to get re-education camps as in China, or are we going to brand non-believers as Kafirs”?

      Yes, and yes. As David Horowitz famously said, inside every liberal is a totalitarian screaming to get out. If left to their own devices, the Democratic Party, being a true spawn of the radical Left, will institute, and is already instituting, such measures. I’ve already asked the editor of my local hometown progressive “newspaper” to visit me in my concentration camp cell when they come and get me for opposing global warming and/or the sexual revolution.

  4. Martin Luther before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms

    Luther’s appearance at the Imperial Diet was described as objective, clever and well thought out. He had to appear before the Emperor twice; each time he was clearly told to take back his teachings. Luther didn’t see any proof against his theses or views which would move him to recant:
    “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

    • May I add a grateful “Amen” to him what he said.
      May I also add that, in the study of our natural realm, it’s long past the time the scientific “popes and councils” stop saying “amen” and start saying, “Now wait a minute…”.

  5. For Darwin’s Birthday, Poll Shows Broad Support for Teaching Evidence For and Against Darwin’s Theory

    Just in time for Charles Darwin’s birthday on February 12, a new nationwide survey reveals that 81 percent of American adults believe that “when teaching Darwin’s theory of evolution, biology teachers should cover both scientific evidence that supports the theory and scientific evidence critical of the theory.”
    Only 19 percent of Americans believe that “biology teachers should cover only scientific evidence that supports the theory.”
    “Americans agree by an overwhelming margin that students should learn about all of the scientific evidence relating to Darwinian evolution, pro and con,” said Dr. John West, Vice President of Discovery Institute. “This is a common-sense approach. Most people understand that it’s not good education to present a one-sided review of the data, especially in science.” . . .
    * 79 percent of men and 83 percent of women support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory.

    * 85 percent of theists, 65 percent of atheists, and 79 percent of agnostics support this approach.

    * 79 percent of Democrats support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, and so do 82 percent of independents and 85 percent of Republicans.

    * 85 percent of middle-aged Americans (ages 45-59) support teaching the evidence for and against Darwin’s theory, and so do 81 percent of young adults (ages 18-29) and senior citizens (ages 60 and older).

    Martin Luther before the Emperor at the Diet of Worms

    Luther’s appearance at the Imperial Diet was described as objective, clever and well thought out. He had to appear before the Emperor twice; each time he was clearly told to take back his teachings. Luther didn’t see any proof against his theses or views which would move him to recant:
    “Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason – I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other – my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen.”

    • What evidence against the theory of evolution is there? Aside from the general weakness about the source of the first living thing, what precisely are you meaning?

      • Darwin’s challenge: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”

        So here is just one example: birds

        According to Darwinian theory, birds gradually evolved from reptiles. However, there are quite a few problems with this scenario, not the least of which are the “development” of feathers and avian lungs.

        I’ll just deal with lungs.

        Birds’ lungs are a true circulatory system – their structure is dramatically different from the structure of mammal and reptilian lungs, where the air flows in, then reverses direction and flows out. No lung in any other vertebrate species is remotely like the avian lung. Moreover, it is IDENTICAL in all essential details in all birds, from the tiniest hummingbird to the enormous ostrich.

        “… the avian lung cannot function as an organ of respiration until the parabronchi system which permeates it and the air sac system which guarantees the parabronchi their air supply are both highly developed and able to function together in a perfectly integrated manner.” — Evolution: A Theory in Crisis by Michael Denton, p 212.

        So given that the two types of lungs are so dramatically different in function and that each is complex and must function in order for the respective animal to breath – how, by means of small, incremental changes, could a reptile lung, where air goes in-and-out, change into a unidirectional airflow system? And where are the “missing links” – the fossils of the animals that would have been the intermediaries in the process?

      • Monna, I don’t find the “its too complex” argument to be very convincing. We’re talking enormous timescales, millions, billions of years.

        As a software guy I’ve spent time playing with evolutionary algorithms, applying the principles of natural selection to problem solving. There seems to be no limit to the complexity of solutions which can arise from a simple starting point, by applying natural selection, mutation and crossover (“breeding” successful solutions from successful parents). The software keeps running and feeling its way towards a solution, until it succeeds, or until the computer runs out of capacity – until the system becomes so complex, it blows the limits of the computer.

      • Monna,

        And where are the “missing links” – the fossils of the animals that would have been the intermediaries in the process?

        Most probably we have them (fossils of animals that would have been the intermediaries). The problem is, you know, that lungs do not tend to be part of the fossil. They decompose. What remains fosilized are the bones and little else. So we don’t have samples of intermediary lungs. This doesn’t mean that they couldn’t have existed.

      • Well, it pays to be precise – Lamarkian theories of some evolution driven by parental behavior, rather than solely parental genetics, were initially poo-poohed, but it turns out there are some cases where the in-uetero environment (driven by the behavior of the mother), can cause real differences in the phenotypic expression, or even the genotypic expression (when seen as a filter).

        So, within the whole “evolution by natural selection”, there’s still a lot of back and forth on the details, even if arguably, “selection by nature” is a tautology if you assume *everything* is nature. Heck, BMWs would seem “natural” to visiting aliens, but we play games about humans being somehow distinct from nature.

      • Monna Manhas February 11, 2016 at 9:08 pm

        So here is just one example: birds

        Not again, not here, please. The last common ancestor of birds &. mammals lived some 340 million years ago, shortly after its ancestor left water. There was plenty of time to develop different lung designs. Also, birds descended from a small population of surviving dinosaurs, so of course their lungs are similar.

        What is more, signs of dumb design outnumber those of intelligent design greatly. For example light sensitive layer of the vertebrate retina is its outermost one, so light is forced to propagate through all other layers to reach it. It spawns many difficult design issues with only suboptimal solutions, from the need to transparent neurons to a blind spot and shadows cast by blood vessels. Anyone with a bit of foresight would have started the other way around, like in case of the cephalopod eye. That tells us something the about the mental capacity behind the process. By the way, the mammalian lung is another example, bird lungs are superior in every conceivable respect.

        If you are looking for an actual mystery, consider abiogenesis. That’s a much more fertile ground, still left blank by science.

      • Monna –
        If not by evolution then, are you implying that birds were created, say by divine intervention, some four to seven thousand years ago?

      • Monna,
        Here is an interesting Ted Talk regarding just how Few Genetic Modifications would be necessary to remove a Chicken’s Feathers and give it scales, to remove wings and give it arms. remove the stubby feathered tail and give it a long tail, and to remove the beak and give it teeth. Kind of Reverse Evolution rather than Naturel Forward evolution.

        One thing that Nature teaches us is that any creature that Can’t Evolve to meet the changes in its environment is destined to extinction. Evolution is a necessary process. So Any Perfect Being must be able to evolve to meet the changing effects if their environment.

      • benofhouston
        February 11, 2016 at 8:28 pm

        What evidence against the theory of evolution is there?

        What evidence for it is there that isn’t based on “settled science” theories supporting other “settled science” theories supporting other “settled science” theories etc. etc. forming a consensus that has taught the next consensus?
        Observations. Where are they? When has a rabbit had a rat? A dog had a cat? A horse had a cow? An alarmist had a cow? (Sorry, bad example.)
        Breeding and “natural selection” have produced critters that differ one from another. Look at the different dog breeds. Very different from each other. But they are all still dogs.
        You already mentioned where “life” originated being unknown. (Me, I’d say “unacknowledged.)

      • “Where are the missing links?”

        OMG. I was a geology student. We had to go out in the field and identify fossils. As far as I could tell — they were ALL intermediate forms! “Ooo, this one has 3 out of 4 minor traits of Species speciosa but neither of the two distinctive traits; instead it has the one most-distinctive trait of Species otherosa and NONE of S. otherosa’s minor features. Oh, joy.”

        Sometimes I’d get lucky and could see that at least the fossil didn’t have any features that said it wasn’t S. speciosa — so, OK, let’s go with that!

      • Gunga and Monna, thanks for actually providing an argument. However, your claims are a bit lacking. The dog breeds that we have developed in less than ten thousand years are radically different from each other. If they were discovered today, no one would ever claim that a dachshund was the same species as a doberman, much less the same sub-species. Multiply that by a few orders of magnitude, and I see no reason to believe a rat-dog breed couldn’t gradually become a rat species. This is also supported by a number of clearly separate species being able to breed. If everything was made at once, why WOULD it be possible to breed mules or ligers?

        In fact, evolution is simpler than any other explanation. After all, I’ve definitely never seen anything pop into existence, which is realistically the only other way. I have a far easier time believing that complex changes happened in iterations rather than poping.

      • The problem with respecting the actual evidence is that you never know where you’ll end up.

        As David L. Hagan rightly points out, the ship of neo-Darwinian synthesis (the idea that natural selection acts on DNA mutations) is sinking, with a large rip in its side called information theory.

        Simply put, combinatorial space is too vast for neo-Darwinianism to be a viable theory. For every actual DNA code that produces a functioning protein of 150 amino acids in length, the number of DNA codes that produce a non-functioning protein is estimated at 10^77 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g). That is more than the estimated number of atoms in the Milky Way galaxy.

        Evolutionary algorithms smuggle in information to guide the search, and thus are not an accurate predictor of function obtained by random mutation and natural selection (Mr. Worrall, try implementing an evolutionary algorithm with a randomly generated, constantly changing fitness function and see if you get anywhere).

        And ben, I would call that evidence against the theory of evolution (as instantiated in the neo-Darwinian synthesis).

        Independent thinking is a dangerous thing. Once you let it go, you don’t know whose ox will be gored.

      • Dean, that’s a strawman.

        Yes, it’s impossible for a protein to randomly pop into existence. However, that’s not the argument. As I said. Popping doesn’t happen. Simple functional systems evolve into other functional systems, gradually increasing in complexity. That reduces the possibility space by many orders of magnitude.

        Besides, the claim that there are so many “non-functional” proteins only works for proteins being non-functional with our current biological systems. The proteins are functional because we use them, not due to any special magic formula. That is just intellectual snobbery, like the claim of “evolutionary stages” where humans are the only “fully evolved” form of life.

        I don’t buy the “it’s too complex” argument. What it really means is that “we don’t know how it could happen”. It’s argument to ignorance. That’s a terribly weak argument.

      • “Not again, not here, please. The last common ancestor of birds &. mammals lived some 340 million years ago, shortly after its ancestor left water.”

        Or, your imagination is not really a magic crystal ball that allows you to time travel, and observe which critters will eventual evolve into which other critters.

        Wake up. silly people, imaging things does not prove them.

      • Eric,

        “The software keeps running and feeling its way towards a solution, until it succeeds, or until the computer runs out of capacity – until the system becomes so complex, it blows the limits of the computer.”

        Show us the result remotely as complex as even a singe living cwell, or quit with the bluffing, please.

      • ben, you don’t know your own theory, apparently, or combinatorial math. A random mutation puts you not on the next baby step away, but in some utterly random location in the DNA code space. There is not enough time in the history of the universe to search this space for functional proteins or any other feature of new body plans or structures. This is not a weak argument; it is THE crux of the matter.

        None so blind.

      • And I understand probability perfectly well, Dean. The number one way to declare something impossible is to give too rigid a standard. Probability, after all, is only a reflection of what you are modelling.

        I’m saying that your statistics require that we are the only endpoint and ignore the possibility of various item, such as amino acid arrangement being either linked or autoarranging. Both of the undermine your claim. Your rigid interpretation of the mechanism is what is impossible, not the premise, which covers a much broader range of possibilities.

        Thus, my statement that you are setting up a strawman.

      • Note, I apologize for the poor wording of the prior post. I accidentally clicked post while rewriting. However, the point still stands.

      • ben, thank you for your reply.

        No, I respectfully say that it appears you are the one not understanding the problem correctly. Who is assuming that “we” (or any single protein) is the only endpoint? What I’m saying is that the number of ALL known proteins are in the tens of thousands (of all lengths) and the number of possible arrangements of the DNA code for a short, and less complex, protein is on the order of 10^195 according to Douglas Axe’s simulation.

        ben, this argument is based on known facts and observations. What we KNOW, in other words. Yes, there is much that will be learned, but what we KNOW is that the number of known proteins is on the order of 10^4 and the number of possible proteins is unimaginably higher, nearing 10^200, more than all the particles estimated in the universe times the Planck interval, which is the shortest conceivable instant of time for anything physical to occur.

        Any other arguments that there might be other endpoints or working proteins produced by DNA codes are sheer speculation, based entirely on unobserved, unknown assumptions driven by the need to preserve a new-Darwinian ideology. Even if the number of actual proteins out there in imagine space were 10^10 more than what we know, it would still be an impossible task to search that code space using random mutations and natural selection within the known universe and even the most generous figures for the universe’s age.

        Please don a life jacket and prepare to abandon the sinking ship of neo-Darwinism.

      • Correction: “times the Planck interval” should be “times the number of Planck intervals in the history of the universe”. My thought is unchanged, but my wording was incorrect.

  6. OMG…WTF…holy Shiite batman !! How much lower can the Washington Post sink ? Do they not realize Obama will not be around in 2017 !!

  7. Our kids need to learn the truth. We don’t allow creationism to be taught in science classes because there is no scientific support. It is the same with climate science, the vast majority of scientific studies indicate that the warming over the past 50 years is due to increases in GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes. Alternative explanations are not based on science and therefore should not be taught in science classes.

    • Evolution is well established – there are multiple lines of evidence which support it. But the most important supporting evidence, in my view, is that the theory of evolution can and has been used to make non trivial predictions, which have later been verified by observation. My favourite prediction is Darwin’s Moth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

      Similarly with Einstein’s prediction that starlight would be bent by the Sun’s gravity. There were actually two competing theories, at the time Einstein made his prediction. Both theories did a good job of explaining known observations. But the other theory predicted that gravity could not bend light. The other theory was wrong.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_eclipse_of_May_29,_1919

      In science, prediction is everything. Anyone can retrofit facts to an explanation, but a theory which can predict observations which have yet to be made, is the gold standard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prediction#Prediction_in_science

      If climate models were any good at prediction, we wouldn’t be having this conversation – I would be agreeing with you, that disagreement with climate models was ridiculous.

      • Eric:
        Excellent:
        My favorite demarcation between science and non-science (which I heard from Dr Bill Wattenberg)”:
        “You can explain anything as the action of angels in heaven or demons in hell. However, you can predict nothing“.
        This is why climate science is not science. It explains everything by the action of CO2. It predicts nothing“. All you get is an after the fact assertion that what has occurred was caused by CO2 – about as much use as a forecast of yesterday’s weather today.
        For evolution as opposed to intelligent design:
        The giraffes neck – why does the nerve that connect the brain to the larynx go all the way down the neck and back up again?

      • Walt D. “You can explain anything as the action of angels in heaven or demons in hell. However, you can predict nothing“.
        This is why climate science is not science. It explains everything by the action of CO2. It predicts nothing

        It is funny how you have it exactly backward!
        If it is predictions that are required, can you (or anyone) explain how the hypothesis “it is natural”* leads to any predictions at all? Temperatures go up – that is natural. Temperatures go down – that is natural. Whatever the climate does, as long as it does not stray outside the extremes going back millions of years, that is natural. It can explain everything, and therefore it explains nothing.

        Mainstream climate theory, on the other hand, does make predictions. These are discussed fequently on these pages. Sometimes they are found to be less than 100% accurate, but they clearly and definitely exist. Where are the predictions from “nature theory?”

        Which approach is the scientific one?

        *it makes no difference if you re-phrase the “null hypothesis” slightly. Whatever formulation you use, there is zero predictive power.

      • If it is predictions that are required, can you (or anyone) explain how the hypothesis “it is natural”* leads to any predictions at all? Temperatures go up – that is natural. Temperatures go down – that is natural. Whatever the climate does, as long as it does not stray outside the extremes going back millions of years, that is natural. It can explain everything, and therefore it explains nothing.

        There is no need for Skeptics to have an explanation for what cannot be explained, for the most part. Warmists have no answers to the ice ages and other natural variations either.

      • There is no need for Skeptics to have an explanation for what cannot be explained,

        There is a need for what we teach in science class to be based in science. “This cannot be explained” is not a scientific theory. This is not what we should be teaching our kids in science class. There is no alternative to mainstream climate theory since there is no other scientific theory of climate.

      • seaice1 – the observations of natural variability and the evidence, both from historical records, and temp. proxies tell us it exists and can be extremely large and happen over decades to centuries to millennia. Hard to get good decadal data from proxies, however.

        The null hypothesis should be that unless proven otherwise, natural variability could easily be responsible. Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation should be examined first.

        One can make predictions and observe patterns from natural variability if there are cyclic (imperfect ones) phenomena occurring. There should be an effort to compare both the predictions from natural as well as anthropogenic causes and determine how much of each is present. This is being done but it takes awhile and some want to declare that they know there truth before the comparisons are finished and push it into the political arena. Walt D. has overstated the case, but what you said is not correct either.

      • the observations of natural variability and the evidence, both from historical records, and temp. proxies tell us it exists and can be extremely large and happen over decades to centuries to millennia.

        Eric Worral says prediction is the gold standard for science. Walt D agrees, so do I. What is the “alternative” theory that gives any prediction about climate? We all agree it can change, but to be scientific (according to Eric and Walt and me and Bill Wattenberg) we must have a theory that can make predictions. Please show me the predictions from this “alternative theory” that were made years ago, and show me how well they have matched up to reality.

        Otherwise we are left with there being only one scientific theory of climate, as I said at the beginning.

      • seaice1, by the null hypothesis one has not to predict anything. Predictions are needed for the alternative theories to be tested against reality.

      • seaice1:

        You assert

        “This cannot be explained” is not a scientific theory.

        It is a scientific statement!

        It is the most important of all possible scientific statements because failure to acknowledge “This cannot be explained” prevents research that would provide a theory to explain the “This”.

        Richard

      • Climate science does make predictions and those predictions have been verified. If the recent warming is due to increases in GHGs the prediction is that the troposphere will warm and the stratosphere will cool in the mid latitude belt. That is exactly what recent measurements have found.

        Enhanced Mid-Latitude Tropospheric Warming in Satellite Measurements
        Qiang Fu1,2,*, Celeste M. Johanson1, John M. Wallace1, Thomas Reichler3
        Science 26 May 2006:
        Vol. 312, Issue 5777, pp. 1179
        DOI: 10.1126/science.1125566

        The spatial distribution of tropospheric and stratospheric temperature trends for 1979 to 2005 was examined, based on radiances from satellite-borne microwave sounding units that were processed with state-of-the-art retrieval algorithms. We found that relative to the global-mean trends of the respective layers, both hemispheres have experienced enhanced tropospheric warming and stratospheric cooling in the 15 to 45° latitude belt, which is a pattern indicative of a widening of the tropical circulation and a poleward shift of the tropospheric jet streams and their associated subtropical dry zones. This distinctive spatial pattern in the trends appears to be a robust feature of this 27-year record.

      • Rainer. To be convincing as a scientific theory we must be able to make predictions. Eric Worral said so and I agree. The null hypothesis is used in statistical hypothesis testing. The null hypothesis is not a scientific theory. Therefore we cannot teach “the null hypothesis” as if it were a scientific theory when it is not. All we can do is reject the null hypothesis or fail to reject it. We never accept it.

        Making predictions based on theory and testing the predictions is an alternative to the statistical approach of the null hypothesis. Both can be valid approaches. In this case, the physical theory approach is much more appropriate. Unless you can show me another theory that makes predictions about all aspects of the climate, the mainstream one is the only show it town.

        Take evolution as an example. “the idea of a “null hypothesis of Darwinian evolution” seems nonsensical in the 21st century” according to Professor of biochemistry Laurence Moran. The null hypothesis is not the approporiate way to test such complex physical theories. And fundamentally, it is not required that something pass a “null hypothesis test” for it to be an accepted theory.

      • Luke February 12, 2016 at 7:24 am
        “Climate science does make predictions and those predictions have been verified.”

        No they haven’t.

        Stop making stuff up.

      • +100 Eric. The whole business about how evolution works may be far more complex than Darwin envisioned and the 19th century reduction of the theory to the “law of the claw and fang” and social Darwinism have muddied the water somewhat but those, as Anthropogenic Climate Change is today, were politically promoted in their day. The issue is not whether human activity has an effect on Climate it is just not a catastrophe now or in the foreseeable future. If we can get through this and continue to advance one day we will be able to engineer a climate for our colonies on Mars because our understanding of complex phenomena will continue to evolve and our ability to shape our environment will continue refine itself. Call it “The imperative of progress”

      • With respects, did Darwin predict something else would become a moth or that a moth would become … a moth? A moth that looked different but still, a moth, not a butterfly.

      • Eric,

        “Evolution is well established – there are multiple lines of evidence which support it.”

        I only know of a few, and no longer consider any of them scientifically demonstrable.

        “But the most important supporting evidence, in my view, is that the theory of evolution can and has been used to make non trivial predictions, which have later been verified by observation. My favourite prediction is Darwin’s Moth – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xanthopan_morgani

        That is a trivial prediction, to my mind . . Something HAS to pollinate those flowers, or they’d stop existing, ya know?

        The bulk of the “evidence” is only non-trivial if we pretend we know of no other possibility . . but we do know of one, huh?

      • Richard, what theory that actually makes predictions do you think we should teach? Your favored null hypothesis is not it. Not only can it never make predictions, it is also never accepted. It is at best not rejected.

    • Luke says there is no scientific support for creation. Exactly. Creation is, by definition, that which cannot be explained by science. The research continues. It will never end. That which is not physical cannot be proved or disproved by that which is. The realms are mutually exclusive. The fact there are things that are beyond science should be taught.

    • Luke: Creation Science and Climate Science are both dogma based systems. Fundamentalist Christians have every right to complain that one is taught in science classes and the other is not.(In my opinion neither should be taught – the both belong in religious studies). They have also every right to complain that Christian values ares not allowed to be taught in public schools, but political correctness, a state sponsored religion, is. BTW, I am not a fundamentalist christian myself. I do believe in the Theory of Evolution – (i.e. the composition of the gene pool changes over time).

    • Luke said — “the vast majority of scientific studies indicate that the warming over the past 50 years is due to increases in GHGs from the burning of fossil fuels and land use changes.”
      I say — Care to show us the one study that proves that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. All you need is ONE, so don’t tell us to read a few thousand pages. Just cite one by quote, paragraph, page and URL.
      Be sure your citation explains how the post 1950 warming could only be man caused, while a similar warming before 1950 was natural (1950 is per the IPCC). also explain how the Minoan, Roman & Medieval warm periods were warmer than now without man’s CO2 and why, whatever caused them, is NOT the cause of the current warm period.

      • “Care to show us the one study that proves that man’s CO2 is causing dangerous global warming. All you need is ONE,

        Only one?
        http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00382-014-2128-2#
        The conclusion: “Even in the most unfavourable cases, we may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99”

        Now this does not prove it is dangerous, but it does claim to prove that the recent changes are not due to “natural variability”.

      • seaice1, in your linked paper they had not measured the anthropogenic component vs. the natural one. How they then can “may reject the natural variability hypothesis at confidence levels >99 %” using “two nonclassical statistical features — long range statistical dependencies and “fat tailed” probability distributions (both of which greatly amplify the probability of extremes)” is beyond me. Seems they just wrote a paper to impress you.

      • The paper tested the hypothesis that “something out of the ordinary” is happening when compared to previous natural variations, and the null hypothesis that the current variation is “natural”. This null hypothesis was rejected. Therefore the hypothesis that a non-natural cause is responsible is accepted. Everything apart from CO2 was included in “natural”, so it pretty much does confirm the AGW theory. If it is right, of course.

    • Luke, oh my, you forgot the ‘SARC’ tag to your post . . . . .

      . .what’s that, . . you actually BELIEVE, what you just wrote . . ? ! ? !

      . . .well, then you have LOT of learning to do . . .

    • Teaches need to duckspeak goodthink. Teachers who speak crimethink must be sent to reeducation cadres for reeducation.

    • But what is the truth?? (Luke). An age-old question, indeed. The teachers who present both theories are doing it the proper way, I think. And if it is clear to the students that we are only theorising (because the “truth” is not known) all is OK. Students should never be “taught a truth” – they should be taught to think for themselves.

      • “The teachers who present both theories are doing it the proper way,”
        This is wrong because there is in fact only one theory of climate. The alternative is not a theory, but a collection of disparate speculations, some of which may count as hypotheses. Ranging from the sun to un-specified cycles, none of these comes close to a theory. Just to remind everyone: “A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.”

        “Nature did it” is not a theory. It is a “null hypothesis”. We do not teach every hypothesis at school level. We only teach science that has developed beyond that.

      • seaice1 – Your definition also excludes current climate science, as the “body of facts” have most definitely NOT been “repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment.” “Proof by repeated assertion” doesn’t count.

      • seaice1:

        You assert

        there is in fact only one theory of climate.

        Really!? You know of a “theory of climate”?

        Please state this theory and its supporting evidence because I have not heard or read of any such theory.

        The only representative of such an existing theory which I can imagine is that there are many climates and they all change over time mostly as a result of unknown causes.

        Richard

      • “there is in fact only one theory of climate.”
        Well go ahead, spill it Luke.
        I have been waiting 30 years to hear it, so tell us…
        Apart from conjecture assuming a correlation between atmospheric concentrations of CO2 and the imaginary metric of an estimated average global temperature, nothing has been put forward by the IPCC.
        You know the “One Theory”?
        Quick tell the IPCC, they will give you the peace prize.Make you the go to world expert.

        You do know what a scientific theory is?
        Eh?

      • Luke is the blind man touching the CO2 climate control knob of the elephant. I’m reminded of Far Side Thermometry on elephants.
        ==================

      • The theory is that the energy in the system results from the forcings. There will always be an equilibrium where energy in = energy out. If we retain a bit more of the incoming, then temperature will rise until energy in = energy out again. Climate is much more complicated, as this energy will be distributed around the Earth – between biosphere, atmosphere, geosophere and hyodrosphere. This distribution will follow physical laws. That’s it in a nutshell. There are a few details to iron out. Those details are what the climate scientists are working on.

        You see, the theory does not even mention CO2. It is wrong to call it the CO2 theory. Rather, the climate theory predicts that CO2 will have an effect.

      • seaice1
        February 12, 2016 at 5:30 am

        “The teachers who present both theories are doing it the proper way,”
        This is wrong because there is in fact only one theory of climate.

        This is wrong because there is in fact only one political useful theory of climate…
        (There. Fixed it for ya’.)

      • Gunga Din, you still have not shown me an alternative theory that makes predictions about climate. Since predictions are the gold standard, it appears there is no alternative to the mainstream theory as far as teaching in schools goes.

      • In some subtropical climates there are these bugs that bite. They are annoying. You don’t see them but they are still there.
        Folks haven’t figured out how to avoid them.

      • seaice1
        February 14, 2016 at 4:41 am

        Gunga Din, you still have not shown me an alternative theory that makes predictions about climate. Since predictions are the gold standard, it appears there is no alternative to the mainstream theory as far as teaching in schools goes.

        Huh? Predictions are the “gold standard”? To continue to teach kids about climate and weather related science based only on what went into the current failed current computer models or one Mann’s one tree-ring based climate science is teaching them fool’s gold.
        Give them the facts without the spin.
        Who knows? One of them might come up with a computer model that actually comes close to reality.

    • The skeptics point to the satellite data, the CAGW crowd wants to use the other data. The CAGWers say the Medieval Warm Period never happened, the skeptics talk about the large and increasing body of evidence for it.

      I wonder what we’d get if we just averaged all the data. Calculate the results without any weighting to skew the results away from the mean of all the studies, regardless of whether there was more on one side or the other for the particular indicators.

    • Luke, tell me the harm of teaching that there are scientists that disagree with the CO2 control knob theory, even though they may agree that it has some (undiscovered) level of effect. It clearly isn’t 100% . Even the consensus has been having a few doubts and are looking at natural variability more than before when the “Pause” reared its ugly head (Kevin Trenberth’s climategate email that it was a “travesty” that they couldn’t explain the Pause). Why have so many former climate science supporters that we don’t hear much about anymore become clinically depressed as the Pause dragged on. Also, try to be objective on why the consensus in a flurry of effort, dreamed up over 60 reasons for the pause and why, because it was so devastating that they egregiously adjusted the temperatures upward to kill the pause because the longer they dragged on waiting for things to turn around, the lower the contribution of rising CO2 must logically be.

      A thoughful, non-political reply please.

      • For the same reason that the tobacco companies were prosecuted for sewing doubt and confusion about the effects of smoking on lung cancer. Despite a clear association between smoking and rates of lung cancer the tobacco industry and it’s paid scientists and lawyers delayed the implementation of common sense health regulations and taxes that would have saved thousands of lives.
        The scientific community has reached the same level of confidence about the effects of increased CO2 on global temperature as they have for the smoking-lung cancer connection and in this case the consequences are even greater for humanity.

      • Luke: “The scientific community has reached the same level of confidence about the effects of increased CO2 on global temperature as they have for the smoking-lung cancer connection and in this case the consequences are even greater for humanity.”

        Utter unscientific nonsense.

      • Irrelevant comparison.

        It appeals to the widespread pain that many families have suffered concerning lung cancer and the smoking habit. It’s double dastardly because it targets the emotions of the mostly lower income folks who live in industrialized areas.

        Goes like this … smoking killed my grandpa, power plants and cars make dirty air … then the leap from particulate matter is made to CO2 and climate change causes lung conditions such as asthma. Hook the pain, drag it thru a few over reach leaps and keep repeating it.

        An appeal to fear sautéed in irrelevant comparisons served up by silver tongue emotional manipulators.

    • I wish we did teach creationism in schools. Students should learn what a “falsified” theory looks like. They should learn why creationism was once the mainstream idea — and why it no longer is. That is, in my view, waaay more important than learning about evolution per se.

      Theories are never “true”, anyway; they are either “useful” or not. And, wow! is evolution ever useful! My favorite is the guy who took a bunch of programmable chips. He chose the few that were “least awful” at distinguishing between two tones and, in some fashion, combined and reproduced the “offspring”. Then he chose the few of Gen2 that were least awful at distinguishing two tones. Lather, rinse, repeat. In a couple months (iirc) he had a chip that could distinguish between two tones.

      When its programming was looked at up close, it was a whole lot simpler than anyone expected — and no one could figure out how it did what it did. Some of the “gates” allowed flow first in one direction and then in the other; and there was a bit that appeared not to connect with anything else on the chip but, when it was removed, the chip failed to work.

      • He smuggled in lots of information in the process. He was intelligently designing the offspring and even his “two tones” discriminator, and the feedback of “least awful” was artificially applied information. If he had randomly generated the conditions that formed the fitness landscape, then it would have been at least a little closer.

        The ONLY mechanism by which complex, specified information has ever demonstrably, observably been produced is a MIND.

  8. I am not a confused HS science teacher. I’ve read a lot of the papers regarding this topic for the last 20 years, starting as an undergrad Geo major at UWYO @ Laramie. When I became a HS science teacher in ~2001, I was disturbed at what was starting to happen. I teach in a rural area in SW ND in 2 different high schools during the same day. I teach students to think for themselves. And they aren’t buying this load of BS that’s coming down the pike.
    I am not the only one. But it sure feels like it sometimes.

    • Badger, yew fool. Don’tcha know? We all began as amoeba’s that crawled up out of the ocean to escape jaws.

    • I’m another one like you Badger (I’m a maths, science, and computer science teacher).
      When kids ask me about ‘Global Warming’ I show them the graph on my wall comparing Hansen’s ABC scenarios to the satellite temps, I tell them what the graph’s about and ask them what they all think. First they are surprised, then they are annoyed they were fed such twaddle by warmist teachers.
      Keep up the good work!

    • It sounds like you aren’t doing your job. The association is clear and the risk of delaying action is increasing every day.

      • So, Luke, what is the explanation as to why the satellite temps are trending well below, in fact nearly flat, compared to Hansen’s predictions and the predictions of 99% of the climate models.

        And don’t tell me the climate models don’t do predictions, but “projections”. The results are presented and used as predictions- Global average temperature will be 3degC more in 2100.

        Let’s wait and see before we do anything. Albert had to wait nearly a hundred years for research that seems to show that his prediction of gravity waves is true. He presented his theory with no weaselly “could”, “may”, “is likely”, etc.

      • That’s just the Kool Ade talking, Luke. Kick the habit; join a ten-step program, whatever it takes. We’re rooting for you.

      • “At least one of the members of his team seems to have recognized that Cook had the emphasis all backwards. Ari Jokimäki responded:
        I have to say that I find this planning of huge marketing strategies somewhat strange when we don’t even have our results in and the research subject is not that revolutionary either (just summarizing existing research).”

        I guess Ari didn’t get invited to the Paris backstage festivities. Great article btw. Saved it for future concensus drubbings.

  9. Hope and change.
    Thanks Mr W.
    I’ll spread this around the teacher circuit.
    With any luck they’ll get the competitive urge to teach em better than the next teacher.

  10. Seems to me some teachers are actually teaching students to be true scientists and to question the consensus…….how shameful – banish them immediately

  11. “more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes”

    I thought 97% of all scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes. Does this mean relatively fewer active climate scientists are believers?

    • I believe 3% is the number(94) of papers that stated that global warming was caused by humans. (The data was some 11,000 papers, so actually <1%). The other papers made statements that agreed that human activities made some contribution to the increase in global temperatures.

  12. A wonderful ray of hope. There will be more of this as more teachers look to doing some of their own research on the matter. As the warming meme crumbles and the alarmists get ever more screechy, more alarm bells are ringing and more people are taking time out of their busy days to actually take a look at what is going on.

    The very smart ones are those getting their students to take a look at what’s going on (I know it happens).

    This is the sort of effort we need to pull back from the brink. Well done to every last one of them. Don’t let the green bullies win.

      • Hi Susan. Thanks for your link and for all you do in battling the propaganda. I agree it is rampant and everywhere. What I find hopeful is individual stories that indicate that many kids are simply not buying it. They’ve had it up to here with CAGW hype.

        This story, for me, broadens the scope and shows that a fair number of teachers and students are surviving the dark years of pseudoscience. Yes the “powers that be” will be looking at closing that down, just as they attack dissident views everywhere, but the politics are changing too. There is much dissatisfaction with green ways and green attitudes. The propaganda is not working well for them.

        It may take some time yet, but I feel we are heading out of the era of green.

    • @A.D. Everard, et alia:

      While I am encouraged that even the heavily-Leftist public education system continues to retain a certain amount of integrity, this paper’s most important point may be found in the following quote: “Our data suggest that, especially for political or cultural conservatives, simply offering teachers more traditional science education may not lead to better classroom practice.”

      In short, “If we want to make any more headway, we’re going to have to eliminate conservatives from positions of authority in our re-education camps currently posing as centers of higher learning.”

      • Agreed. They will be fighting this tooth and nail. Point is they are failing in their bid to control minds and change behavior. They are winning some and losing many. If that were not so there wouldn’t be so many papers of “how to communicate” their brand of science and how to ramp up “support” using emotional levers.

        Things are changing on them and they don’t like it.

  13. Aristotelian Consensus vs Galileo
    The tyranny of “consensus” was demonstrated by the Aristotelian academicians against Galileo (not initially the church). In A Brief History of Eternity, Physicist Roy E. Peacock discovered that the Liga, a secret conspiracy of academicians, used false accusations to bias Galileo’s friend, Pope Urban VIII against him, turn him over to the Inquisition, and put him under house arrest.
    Peacock, A Brief History of Eternity p 141.; Notes on Science and Christian Belief Ch 1, p 10

    von Storch et al. (2013) Can climate models explain the recent stagnation in global warming?

    In contrast to earlier analyses for a ten-year period that indicated consistency between models and observations at the 5% confidence level, we find that the continued warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

    Lets see, 100% – 2% = 98%.
    Does that mean that we now have a 98% confidence that the IPCC’s 95% confidence is wrong?

    • No, because we have Lovejoy:
      “Lovejoy’s new study concludes that there has been a natural cooling fluctuation of about 0.28 to 0.37 degrees Celsius since 1998—a pattern that is in line with variations that occur historically every 20 to 50 years, according to the analysis. “We find many examples of these variations in pre-industrial temperature reconstructions””
      http://phys.org/news/2014-07-global-natural-fluctuation.html

      • Now you are joking. If you replace ‘cooling’ with ‘warming’ in that paper (what you may do because we can show that in the data) you will see it is all natural, cooling as well as warming.

      • Rainer -it is not all natural. Lovejoy established that in his previous paper. This paper does not contradict his previous one. The variation that he finds is similar to previous natural ones is what is sometimes called “the pause”. It is categorically not the same as the overall recent warming. Statistically, pause = natural, warming = not natural.

  14. “Some School Students are Still Taught about Climatic Natural Variation”

    Well it’s not just primary and high schools. Professors of geology, especially those who study th Quaternary, are also saying that the present warm period is merely recovery from the Little Ice Age.

    Astrophysicists are still teaching the existence of the de Vries solar cycle of about 200 years and speculating about its effects, including the Little Ice Age itself and the recovery from it.

    • That’s not the way I read it. As I asked above, I thought 97% of all scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes.

      Does this mean relatively fewer active climate scientists are believers than scientists in general?

      • Does this mean relatively fewer active climate scientists are believers than scientists in general?

        It means nothing at all. The 97% meme was completely fabricated in the first place. Where the 95% number comes from we’re not told, but it is just as fabricated as the 97%. So trying to draw meaning from the wording regarding two fabricated numbers is a fool’s errand. I find it amusing that the fabricated number seems to be declining.

        But hey, Penn State was involved. Go ask them where the number came from and insist on their data and emails supporting it. Good luck with that.

      • “So trying to draw meaning from the wording regarding two fabricated numbers is a fool’s errand.”

        Like drawing inferences about a meaningless “global temperature”.

  15. It pleasantly doesn’t surprise me. How could anyone teaching science claim that CO2 is a pollutant? There’s no plausible way to go from plants requiring CO2 to grow and provide the oxygen we breath to it being a pollutant.

    • Oxygen is a way worse pollutant. If we controlled it better we needn’t have such damaging urban or forest fires, and we could slow down rusting. Ban oxygen. Perhaps we should lock it up in CO2. Oh, wait, um, no. Let’s send it into space in rockets.

      • Fires is the trivial part of damage due to oxygen pollution (notice the nature trick of not using quotes). Worldwide, damaging oxidation of steel and aluminum is likely in excess of one trillion $/yr (think Dr. Evil when you say that).

      • Robert commented: ” Oxygen is a way worse pollutant….Worldwide, damaging oxidation of steel and aluminum is likely in excess of one trillion $/yr….”

        Neither Ox or CO2 comes close to the king of pollutants…..H2O. For property damage and direct cause of deaths nothing comes close to H2O.

    • Pollution depends on the circumstances. I can assure that if the anaerobic bacteria that existed a couple billion years ago could vote they would declare oxygen the most dangerous pollutant on Earth.

      And if you put a plant in 100% CO2 it would die. The plant needs O2 throughout the day and night to live. It just takes advantage of CO2 during the day.

      As a submariner and chemist I found it amusing and frightening that the designers of my submarine with degrees in strength of materials did not realize that CO2 forms a very weak acid with water. So 3 years after construction the piping downstream of the CO2 scrubber had been 75% eaten away. CO2 eats mountains!

      • … not to mention that CO2 content may be considerably higher in submarines than in earth’s atmosphere; up to several thousand PPM.

    • How could anyone teaching science claim that heat was a pollutant? There is no plausible way to go from all living things requiring heat to survive to it being a pollutant.

      Except there is. I spent 30 seconds on a google search. Wikipedia has a whole article on it. Google has 4 million hits. It turns out that thermal pollution is accepted as an uncontroversial term. Well, whadayouknow. Something that is essential to life can be a pollutant too.

  16. Clearly the authors of the article think that brainwashing of the students is not proceeding according to their plan. According to them, thirty percent of science teachers are still not convinced of their Lysenkoist doctrine and have the nerve to question AGW! What bothers me here is that an ostensibly scientific journal like Science devotes space to such propaganda but refuses to publish real science if it points out the deficiencies of their doctrine. My experience with them goes back to 2009 when I submitted a paper setting the record straight on sea level rise. Al Gore had just come out with his propaganda article claiming that a 20 foot sea level rise is on the way by the end of this century. I looked in scientific literature and discovered a paper by Chow, Yu, and Li proving that sea level rise for the previous 80 years had been linear with a rate of 2.46 millimeters per year. Something that has been linear that long is not about to change anytime soon. They had carefully corrected their data for influence of any reservoirs built since the year 1900. This works out to just under ten inches, not 20 feet per century as Al Gore claimed.. And when Gore got a Nobel Prize for that trash I knew the fix was in. It got me so mad that I wrote a book on global warming called “What Warming?” It is still in print and you are well advised to get it because those pseudo-scientists controlling the movement still have not caught up with what is in it. In particular, they are behind on volcanic cooling, El Nino theory, and Arctic warming, to mention a few subjects. Science magazine is obviously in the hands of warming activists as the appointment of Marcia McNutt as chief editor attests. Her first editorial was basically a propaganda piece for the global warming idea and contributed nothing to science. But it gets worse. I don’t know if you noticed but the heads of the National Academy of Science and the Royal Society recently got together and issued a joint statement on climate change. I think you can guess what was in it without being told. My reaction to this is that we are stuck with nothing but stupidity in high places.

    • Please, there is a reason Medieval monks developed the concept of paragraphs. You may have had something worthwhile to say, but I’ll never know because your post is simply not readable.

      gary

      • That’s so unkind Gary. He wrote a book remember. (At least I go that much out of the narrative)

        I imagine if you printed it out and spent an evening with a magnifying glass and a notebook you would get the gist. Surely there isn’t so much on the internet that you couldn’t devote an evening on the ramblings of a total stranger. He is, after all, a published author!

    • I submitted a great paper to Science in 2013. One editor liked it, but it was turned down. We resubmitted it to the Journal of Clinical Investigation, and it was accepted there. That paper was featured in JCI, highlighted in F1000, and received a lot of attention in the local press and the blogosphere. That same week, the Science journal had plenty of papers, but only one came close to the level of interest and acclaim mine received.

      Don’t ask me to explain it, they are the gatekeepers.

    • Not stupid. Evil. As in a handful of demons running around the planet today with all the monies, armies, governments in their hip pockets; wreaking havoc and profiting from created “wars”, economic chaos, sickness. A centuries-old banking cabal on the cusp of cornering the world and everything in it; who profit from human misery and demise. No soul, conscience, heart. Global carpetbaggers cleaning up the scraps from their chaos for pennies on the dollars whose end game is to own it all–food, fiber, water, land, minerals, money, animals, industry, jobs, people and hope–with themselves in charge of their private planet and the UN’s version of a Bolshevikian World government, a “manageable population” of about a billion, and their own version of Hunger Games for entertainment.

      Global warming/climate change is their agreed upon cover to establish a world “carbon tax at the UN with which to build their world government’s administrative base. They wrote the legislation that set up the EPA and bribed congress to pass it; giving them a spring board to initiate administrative “law” from which they and their bureaucratic agency could draft administrative rules and regulations that carried with them huge fines and imprisonment if they were not followed; thus enabling them to easily by pass congress and the Constitution; a document their stable of lawyers and judges used from time to time to also hide behind enroute to the tar pit the world finds itself in at present.

  17. It is interesting that after 50 years have passed, the ratio of good teachers to poor ones have not change. 30% teach the ability to think. The rest are just brainwashed drones that insist on rote learned recitation of the latest accepted dogma…pg

  18. Eric Worrall, is the last para “Where will this end? Everyone knows that scientific knowledge advances when everyone agrees the same settled position, that questioning established viewpoints, or dissent from politically approved ideas, is anti-scientific, and should be punished somehow.” is it your view of the original article author’s view? — I totally disagree with it. As a matter of fact, in science political interference is itself unethical.

    In India, China and Europe, etc. traditional astrologers used provide predictions on weather based on astronomical condition. Based on that they used to sail or start preparations for war or agriculture or migration. All this is natural system. The natural system does not change even to date. Some traditional astrologers families still issue such forecasts once in a year in advance on local new year day.

    The man induced modifications are mostly local-regional in nature. They only affect the intensity of desaster.

    We must insist the governments must not meddle with the science. Let the schools and colleges teach the traditional system of climate and climate change. Later, when some one is interested in specializations may look in to other non-traditional issues.

    Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

      • Parody or not Eric, it’s a real problem – There is a basic problem that something that barely ranks as a hypothesis (because a hypothesis is testable while AGW is patently not) is being taught as if it were a hard fact like Pe = mgh or V/I=R. It is really up to every parent to make sure that when their children’s schools try to teach a hypothesis as a fact they kick up a fuss and insist that the school provide the Null Hypothesis as well. Otherwise I recommend you withdraw your children from attending science class while the Climate Change is being taught and teach them the real science yourselves.

  19. This article reminds me of an argument I just had with some kid on YouTube. He said he was “informed” because his science teacher gave him an assignment to research if the opinions of climate scientists matched a “deniers” video. (Never mind the actual content of the video.) I told him his teacher should be fired for giving that project and wasn’t teaching science at all but merely indoctrination through an appeal to authority. I told him when I was in school they taught the scientific method. He got angry and said I was old fashioned and a conspiracy theorists. Such a sad state of affairs this world has become…

    • “He got angry and said I was old fashioned and a conspiracy theorists.”

      They are being taught this by groupthink. They are also being taught to say … “your value system can’t understand our vision for the world”.

      The phrase is common among social justice groups. These groups although each supporting something different are adept at creating an us v them meme. Classic Hoffer mass movement stuff.

      A real mind “twist”.

      • Knutesea, your point is reinforced by a quote from the abstract:
        “Greater attention to teachers’ knowledge, BUT ALSO VALUES, is critical.” (my caps)

      • I’m sure you are aware that in addition to the above tactic, these groups are asserting that they should not be exposed to points of view that are in conflict with their vision and values. In fact, when they hear them they are encouraged to shout them down or request a safe space.

        These are not mere spoiled brats. Key leadership positions are being funded in this effort.

        My personal observation is that we are moving towards a crescendo of nonsense. Many of the young adults are confused by this behavoir but are paralyzed by the fear of not belonging. Sometimes I feel my chest ache when I see what is clearly a form of anointed bullying.

  20. The good news => I haven’t been in high school for several, uhm, decades, but my assumption is that in any reasonably large high school, the sciences are taught by different teachers. Biology, Chemistry, Physics…. so, if roughly 30% of all teachers are letting some light shine in from the other side, them most students will be exposed to some level of doubt at some point.

    The bad news => The National Center for Science Education was once an organization doing good work promoting evolution over creationism in schools. They have, unfortunately, been infiltrated by the climate alarmist crowd who are abusing the NCES credentials as a science organization to drive the CAGW agenda. For example, their board of directors
    http://ncse.com/about/board
    includes Michael Haas, Mr. Big Wind himself:
    http://orionrenewables.com/
    No conflict of interest there….
    And their list of speakers includes none other than Ben Santer of East Anglia:
    http://ncse.com/about/speakers
    ‘Tis a sad day when honorable scientists are turned against the science they set out to defend.

    • It is a shame to see NCSE corrupted. But the indoctrination must go on. It’s so distressing to see the desire to scare children into conforming by telling them they’re to blame.

      AAAS/Science will be rid of McNutt soon, but she’s moving to take the lead at the National Academy of Sciences!

      This paper was from political scientists, by the way. Not appropriate for the journal imho.

  21. I to am strangely encouraged by these numbers.
    After all the propaganda and peer pressure 30% still abide by the scientific method.
    Small wonder the “Science communicators” are whining.
    Watch for Obama to use his “pen and magic cell phone” to have all these heretics fired.

  22. My teacher Grand daughter is a solid professional. She guides students on how to research for the facts. She doesn’t tell them the facts. Once they have done their research on the assigned topic they tell each other in class discussion what they have learned and often debate. She helps them over the rough spots and fills in the blanks when they are done. She says they learn much more, understand it more completely and remember it better when tested. The days of text book reading assignments and teacher lectures are coming to an end. She does history and social studies. I will have to inquire how the global warming goes in the science classes. I think I will be happily surprised.

  23. The fact that a few people here argue against both evolution and mainstream climate science speaks volumes. Someone on this thread has actually asked how birds lungs have developed via evolution. Really. That’s a worrying lack of comprehension regarding basic science and evolution. Just for the record, we don’t have a complete record of the evolution because lungs do not fossilise well, and you may as well say where is the intermediate phases for red hair. Looking at something now and saying it’s amazing how it came to be like this or that is silly, because we looking with hindsight, it could be applied to anything.

    • In what way does it speak volumes?
      It tells me more or less nothing. Except that people are free to turn up and post here.
      The Catholic Church or the Hare Krishnas are in general anti-evolution and now have officially adopted pro-CAGW positions. What does this prove?
      Incidentally, the Hare Krishnas, a.k.a. ISKCON were also strong supporters of the moon landing hoax conspiracy theory.
      Does that speak volumes? Does that prove that supporting CAGW also allies a person with moon landing conspiracies, anti-evolution and a preference for chanting hare krishna?
      I think not.
      http://www.vina.cc/2015/12/03/iskcon-supports-hindu-declaration-on-climate-change/

      • The point is that if you do not believe in evolution, you are flying in the face of one of the most demonstrated and accepted theories in Western science. That tends to suggest that if your view of basic science is radically flawed in one area, it could well be be flawed in others.
        People who reject science don’t tend to do it in just one area. That fact that HKC reject evolution certainly does speak volumes. It reflects the adherence to it’s mother religion of Hinduism and is a similar idea to the rejection of evolutionary sciences in fundamentalist Christianity and other religions. Anyone who rejects the moon landings are patently bonkers, but I’m not sure there is a close correlation between the rejection of evolutionary science and conspiracy theories about moon landings. Conspiracy theories and religious beliefs are separate issues.
        A lack of belief in a well recognised branch of any science is usually reflective of a particular mindset. For instance, would you be happy to be treated for a serious illness by someone who believed that giving any form of medication was wrong and contrary to Gods will?
        With regard to climate science, we can whether climate change is proceeding as normal as natural variation, or we can say debate whether is has been affected by human activity, and the change is effected by CO2 or whatever.
        But if someone says is not changed and never will, or that jesus or Krishna changes it for some reason or another, that tends to undermine the validity of the debate. That suggests a mind set where science does not loom loud in the personal decisions regarding the nature of climate change. The same mindset that says evolution did not happen and Humans and Dinosaurs were contemporaries a few thousand years ago.

      • Thankyou for this lengthy reply.
        I too would have once been inclined to assume that attitudes to one aspect of mainstream science could inform us about views in other areas.
        BUT – the point that I was making was that the Vatican and ISKCON (the Hare Krishnas) actually SUPPORT the global warming and climate change consensus whilst simultaneously questioning the validity of Darwinism. And in the case of ISKCON doubting the reality of the moon landings.
        These people have apparently eagerly embraced the UN/IPCC consensus position.
        So, the world (and the people in it) ain’t so simple…

      • Garetrh,

        “The point is that if you do not believe in evolution, you are flying in the face of one of the most demonstrated and accepted theories in Western science”

        I know of nothing even remotely like a “demonstration” of Evolution . . it’s just some “experts” opinions that it prolly happened, and many people believing that experts in a field are to be treated as “seers’ essentially, whose visions must be falsified or they are “settled science” (some say “established science”).

        It’s literally science by imagination, to my mind.

    • What is your advice if someone posts a viewpoint you don’t like Gareth? Should we call them names, or should we just bar them from the site?

      For the record I think the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. The most compelling evidence that evolution is a good explanation for different species, is that you can use the theory of evolution to make non trivial predictions, as Darwin did, when he predicted his famous moth.

      You can’t say the same about Climate science. Climate scientists are great at attributing events which have already occurred. Not so good at predicting what is going to occur next.

      https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/08/csiro-climate-update-we-dont-know-what-the-heck-is-waiting-for-us/

      • Hi Eric, Good question, No, someone should never be banned from any site for dissension; rudeness and aggression is of course another matter. I think that there are various issues in science that we do not know, and we should not be afraid to say it. Personally I believe that much of climate science is probably correct, however there is much that is not known and we have to acknowledge that,
        The very fact that I have been posting and reading this site for many years is a token of the fact I recognise that, and skeptics can be very useful in pointing out areas of the science where there are unknowns, and we should not pretend we know all the answers. I also do not need to point out that I believe the science is far from settled !
        However there are posters here who seem convinced that climate science is fundamentally flawed and has no value. To me that is every bad as those who believe the science is settled.
        I do note though that on the site there are a lot more right wing ( or Conservative) opinions who oppose mainstream climate science than Lefties like myself. I suspect there are other correlations as well that I would get hell for if I mentioned them. However, I think the idea that climate skepticism is closely correlated with conspiracy theories is complete nonsense, designed more to undermine skeptic opinion than to illuminate the debate.
        With ref to prediction, it appears to me that some of the changes in weather patterns we see were predicted, however I accept that someone, somewhere will always find an example of an event happening previously and so dismiss the fulfilment of that prediction. Living in Wales it is hard to challenge the idea that the the weather is getting more severe in every way.
        Ultimately , like all science, there is a lot more subjectivity involved than many would care to admit, and it shows in these debates on all sites.

      • As I pointed out above : the two sciences cannot really be compared. One (evolution) can be seen and measured; with the other (climate) we see only the changes throughout time – and we can hardly pinpoint reasons for the changes with any scientific certainty.

  24. The fact that a few people here argue against both evolution and mainstream climate science speaks volumes.

    Oh? I saw only one person arguing against evolution, and he never mentioned climate at all in his rant. I may as well ask why people like you come on to science sites and claim the moon landing was faked? Oh, and are you still beating your wife?

    • Davidhoffer. Read the thread again, I suspect you have missed a few points. No one has claimed the moon landing was faked, least of all me. There was a dodgy piece of research a few years back that suggested that climate scepticism was correlated with conspiracy theories. Regular readers of this site will understand that is what I referred to.
      My personal opinion is that if someone rejects the theory of Evolution, they are allowing their personal faith or beliefs to override objective science. If they are happy to do that in the area of evolution, they may act in the same way in other areas. A belief in creationism and rejection of evolution is not a great sign if you are for an objective view of science in any area. However, as I mentioned, that is my personal opinion, others may feel differently.

    • There is a qualitative difference between evolution and climate science. We can look back 3 billion years and see evolution proceeding linearly (with lots of blind alleyways!). We have no such fortunate view of climate science – in fact, all we see is 3 billion years of continuous climate changes. And, let us face it, we have no real, scientific explanation for all those climate changes.

  25. Some of those young students will still be around in the year 2100 to see how much the oceans have gone up.

  26. I had a ‘discussion’ with a fellow across Facebook today about anthropogenic climate change. When he allowed that any CO^2 above 400 ppmv was anthropogenic and therefore was causing climate change, I gave him Janet’s anthem and signed of.

  27. Saw a program some years back about the huge quantity of people in America opting to home school their children, because of this brainwashing from Washington.

  28. Natural variability is the main cause of climate change, the CO2’s role is very minor if any.
    Solar activity is considered to be principal driver of the changes, but solar scientists insist that the changes impacting the Earth are very minor.
    There is also N. Atlantic’s tectonic alternative, but for the time being is not getting any traction

    Perhaps combination of two solar and tectonics could do it, but there are too many vested interests (mainly for personal reasons) which are not going to give in without a bitter struggle.

  29. “a significant number of school teachers are failing to indoctrinate their students with the politically approved position on climate change, or worse, are teaching students that there are forcings other than CO2, which might be driving changes in global temperature.”

    This is good. But what are they teaching their students about what determines basic climate?

  30. When I was at school, a geography teacher told us about some German guy who had the idea that the continents slid around on the Earth, and even suggested that there might something to it! (Sounded interesting but doubtful to me. Surely the continents were rock attached to the Earth, weren’t they?)
    That teacher was not burnt at the stake, but of course in exams we only wrote about the geosyncline theory of mountain building. Exams are not the best opportunities for doubting the consensus.

  31. Mind you, the geosyncline theory seemed pretty dodgy to me, too. I’m not sure I ever properly understood it, though.

  32. It is both encouraging and enraging to read this, as the viewpoint is so backward. Those teachers daring to teach what is true, instead of the CAGW doctrine are heros, yet, in Orwellian fashion they are denigrated as lacking in both knowledge and values;

    Greater attention to teachers’ knowledge, but also values, is critical.

    Notice this gem as well;

    their insufficient grasp of the science may hinder effective teaching.

    So, it is because they have an “insufficient grasp” of “the science” which renders them “ineffective”. My God, what must be done with them? Again, Orwell’s “1984” comes to mind. The implication is that they need “re-training” so that they will give the “correct” point of view to their students.

  33. I see a typo in the WaPo article.

    A major new survey of U.S. middle school and high school science teachers has found that across the country, a majority are teaching about climate change in their classrooms — but a significant percentage are also including (politically) incorrect ideas, such as the notion that today’s warming of the globe is a “natural” process.

  34. From the paper:

    Although more than 95% of active climate scientists attribute recent global warming to human causes (1, 2)

    – I was interested in what “1,2” could be. I found that the 95% comes from Doran and Cook papers (no surprise there). This indicates to me that while there seems to be a concern that some children aren’t being taught AGW, there is no concern that the ‘belief’ is supported by such shonky papers which, if any teacher was worth their salt would be dissected in a class exercise so that pupils could learn how surveys are NOT carried out.

  35. Optimizing private education versus public education is interesting to consider as mitigation against total cultural influence of political mandates on public school curricula.

    John

    • Except that these “standards” apply to private schools too. As well as home schooling. Not following the government prescribed indoctrination when home schooling will, literally, get one confronted with a charge or child abuse.

  36. I teach AP Chemistry in a New England public school, and I speak with the class from Day 1 about how badly science is being done concerning global warming. Unfortunately, it takes me the entire year to tear down the indoctrination, but I win many of them over in the end by providing the entire picture.

    The phD in Chem who teaches next door to me does the same thing. Unfortunately, we remain very much the minority in our department.

  37. . . . a significant percentage are also including incorrect ideas

    “Incorrect” in this context means not ‘inaccurate’ or ‘erroneous’ but. . .

    ‘unacceptable’

    from which it is a short step to “must be punished.”

    /Mr Lynn

  38. Eric Worrall: “In science, prediction is everything.”

    Actually, prediction is only the first step. The sine qua non is falsification.

    The hypothesis that late-20th-century warming was caused by anthropogenic CO2 has been falsified.

    Yes, the ‘null hypothesis’ is not predictive, and cannot be falsified. It is equivalent to saying, “We don’t know,” which is the essential impetus to scientific inquiry. To claim, as the Climatists do, that “We know, and it’s settled; no argument is allowed” is the very antithesis of science—it’s dogma, religion.

    /Mr Lynn

  39. Leonard Lane
    February 11, 2016 at 10:04 pm

    You are not a scientist Leonard Lane. It does no harm to teach problems and uncertainties about the main theorem and there are problems. The so-called 97% would have no more to do if it was all known – this belief has been instrumental in 350 climate scientists being laid off at CSIRO in Australia and it is a logical thing to do given the certainty expressed by climate scientists about what is happening. The big layoff has, as expected, resulted in international criticism of the decision. Why? Well because there is so much ‘we’ are uncertain of. They stopped being certain when it came to not needing their services any longer.

    You seem like a logical fellow Leonard. Surely, with this certainty stuff, does it not make sense to you to layoff most of the 100,000 climate scientists in the world and keep a small caretaker few to keep the records up to date and record the progress of the end of the world or what might be done to avert it? After all, if it is a one-formula-fits-all science, I would say one in each of the 5 or 6 decision making countries would be enough to form a discussion group on the progress. With the invention of the automobile and the airplane, would we still need someone to head up a city office of horse manure problem mitigation?

  40. It becomes a problem when students are being taught that AGW is fact when in reality it is a conjecture with gaping holes. When you tell them that there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate rather than discuss the issue they call you a liar because they were taught otherwise. It seems that AGW is being taught as a religion and to speak against it is some sort of blasphemy. I have run across commenters that object to the idea that H2O is a gas in the Earth’s atmosphere. They treat science as a list of facts that they have to memorize to pass a test and they have no concept of first principals. The big problem with climate science is that you cannot prove anything. There are too many variables and one cannot run definitive experiments. Models are really some form of make believe and are not reality but there are many who do not really understand that.

  41. ‘Correct’ and ‘incorrect’ ideas sounds very ominous to me. Can we all mouth the names ‘Mao”, ‘Khmer Rouge’, and ‘Stalinist Russia’ together and take pause.

    As we all know the brains of middle and high school students are nowhere near fully formed. Teachers need to school students on how to think, not what to think. Critical examination of scientific ideas and evidence is the learning they need, not a spoon fed recitation of a dogma approved at the national level.

  42. Color me yellow, but when I was a science teacher, I just taught the curriculum like I was employed to do. Evolution, Ozone, and Global Warming, I had strong doubts about all 3 of them, but I taught it anyway. The only thing I tried to do was to impress on my students that they should always do their own thinking and own observing, which admittedly was a little off-topic in a science class, and I am not sure how relevant it was to 17 year olds who were just trying to pass another subject.

  43. I’m posting this in case a teacher or two is online. It’s not meant to be a political endorsement. He discusses the power of the less than 10%. I liked the inspiration it provided.

    Why I Have Hope By Ron Paul

    I think the most exciting message for me today is that things are changing.

    Often, when I come to these events, people ask me, “isn’t this grueling, isn’t this very tough?” It’s not, though, and it’s actually a bit selfish on my part, because I get energized when I meet all the young people here. It’s true there is a spread of ages here, but there are a lot of young people and some of them even come up to me and say “you introduced me to these ideas when I was in high school a few years ago.”

    And it’s not just people at events like these. When I landed at the airport on my way here, I was approached by two young people who came up to talk to me. They didn’t know each other, but both spoke with foreign accents, and both said they were from Africa. They said they heard the message of liberty over the Internet, and they had been following me ever since 2008.

    Positive Trends

    These are just examples, but I do think they represent a larger change that is taking place right now. Things are changing dramatically and in a favorable way.

    We’re in this transition period right now where the attitudes are changing. But our views have been out there a long time, so we have to ask ourselves why we’re seeing more success now among the young and many future leaders.

    Part of this is just due to greater availability of ideas. The Internet certainly helps, and a lot of the credit must go to organizations like the Mises Institute that make the ideas of liberty more easily available to everyone.

    I also never imagined that my presidential campaigns would get the attention they did for our ideas. Our success in bringing new young people into the movement surpassed anything I thought was possible.

    Change Will Come Whether We Like It or Not

    But the reason we see more success for these ideas is not just because it’s easier to find them and read them. We’re living in a time when people — especially young people — can see that the old ideas aren’t working any more.

    The young generation has inherited a mess from the older generations, and the young can see that what they’ve been told isn’t true. It’s not true that you can just go to college, run up a bunch of student debt, and then get a good job. The young can see that the middle class is being destroyed by our current economic system. And they can see that our foreign policy is failing.

    Whether we like it or not, change will come. The troops will come home. They probably won’t come home for ideological reasons, but simply because the United States is broke and can’t afford all its wars anymore.

    We’re also living in a time when the economic system is going to come unglued. The old Keynesian economic system isn’t working and young people can see it.

    If it is true that we’re in the midst of an end of an era, though, the question remains as to what’s going to replace the system we have now. There are still plenty of socialists — popular ones — who are out there saying that what we need is more government control and more war to fix the economy and the world. So, we still have a lot of work to do, but I think we’re in a better place now than we’ve been in a long time.

    We Don’t Need a Majority

    When thinking about all the work we still have to do, it’s important to keep in mind that we don’t need majority support. If you’re waiting for 51 percent of the population to say “I’m libertarian and I believe everything you say,” you’ll lose your mind. What we need for success is intellectual leadership in a country that can influence government and the society overall.

    That’s where the progress is being made. We’re only talking about 7 or 8 percent of a country that is necessary to provide the kind of influence you need. This was the case during the American Revolution, and it’s true today. You are part of that 8 percent.

    When doing this work, though, there are many things that can be done. People often ask me “what do you want me to do.” My answer is: “do what you want to do.”

    There is no one way. Some people can use the political system, and others can go into pure education. Lew Rockwell started the Mises Institute, but what you do for the cause of liberty is personal to you, and you have to find what makes sense for you.

    Also, you can’t know all the positive effects your work is having. I certainly had no way of knowing all these years how I was having an effect on those young Africans I met at the airport.You can’t always know what effect you’re having either.

    Where To Start

    So, say that we are successful, and our 7 or 8 percent continues to gain influence. What should we be doing? I think there are three basic places we need to start.

    First off, we would see to it that there would be no income tax in the United States ever again.

    Second, we would take the Federal Reserve and all its leadership and relegate them to the pages of history.

    We would then pass a law that the US government cannot commit any crime that it punished other people for. It’s wrong to steal and hand people’s property over to other people, no matter how much people who do that win the applause of others.

    And finally, we would bring all the troops home. Randolph Bourne was right when he said that war is the health of the state. Peace is the friend of liberty and prosperity.

    We Need Humility

    As a final note, I’d like to say that humility and tolerance need to be an important part of our efforts.

    Yes, we need a foreign policy based on humility. We can’t know what’s right for people around the world, and we certainly shouldn’t force anything on them.

    But right here at home, we need humility also. In fact, libertarianism is based on humility. We can’t know what’s best for other people. No one can, and that is why we want people to have the freedom to do what they think is best for themselves.

    This is true in economics, of course. Do you think Janet Yellen knows what the “correct” interest rate is? There are many things that economic planners can’t possibly know. And for that reason — and others — there are so many things they shouldn’t be doing.

    And yes, there are a lot of people out there living their lives in ways we might disagree with. But intolerance is what government is based on. The far left, they are very intolerant and are happy to have people with guns tell other people how to live.

    We need to keep in mind that if other people aren’t hurting us or using government to force their way of life on us, they should be left alone.

    Unlike the left, we want tolerance for other people’s morals and for how other people work for a living and what they choose to do with their money.

    We need more tolerance and humility in every aspect of life, and that’s how we get a free society.

    So, let’s all go to work and preserve the cause of liberty.

    Thank you very much,

    Ron Paul

    • O.K., O.K., Ron Paul – but what has all that got to do with teaching school students about natural climate variation??

      • Eh, he was talking about seeds that are planted along the way that you may not currently realize … blah blah … it sounded good and happens to be true.

  44. There is hopeful optimism that teaching AGW as a theory and not scientific truth will get through. That the predictions of doom have never panned out is powerful evidence and common sense against AGW.

Comments are closed.