Prev  1  2  

Comments 51 to 87 out of 87:

51. apiratelooksat50 at 14:33 PM on 26 January, 2012
    Stephen at 48 I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change.
    0 0
52. apiratelooksat50 at 15:26 PM on 26 January, 2012
    Sphaerica at 49 Again you are proving yourself very adept at applying your misconceptions to my comments. Furthermore, you are making assumptions for which you have zero basis other than your own bias. I only commented on the first bullet from the NCSE Climate 101 page. And, out of that bullet I only questioned the extinction statement. How you can so inaccurately infer my thoughts on the other three bullet points is beyond comprehension and reflects your own ideology. The first bullet point on the NCSE website could be more accurately reworded to state: ..."and contribution to the extinction of plant and animal species"... For instance, from the IUCN website on the Golden Toad (that Painting and Paul D referenced) they list the following major threats: "Its restricted range, global warming, chytridiomycosis and airborne pollution probably contributed to this species' extinction." Essentially they say what I would like to see and consider more accurate. And, for the last time I will reiterate my thoughts on climate change: it is happening (always has), human activities contribute to it, no one knows how bad it may or may not be, and in the meantime we should be acting immediateley and responsibly in the areas of conservation of resources and the R/D of new dependable energy technology that will enable us to move away from fossil fuel use.
    0 0
53. Bob Lacatena at 16:02 PM on 26 January, 2012
    52, Pirate, You need to study the science well enough to correct the following misstatements:
    • human activities contribute to [cause] it
    • no one knows [climate scientists know] how [very] bad it may or may not [could] be [as well as at a minimum how bad it will be]
    Can I presume from your closing statements that you will begin better educating your students and fellow teachers (and yourself) on at least some of the gravity of climate science? Or is it simply easy to say "act immediately" but easier to drive by SkS and say whatever you can to influence people to do the opposite? As a teacher and someone involved directly in environmental action, can you take the position of The National Center for Science Education to heart, and follow through with it?
    0 0
54. apiratelooksat50 at 02:16 AM on 27 January, 2012
    Sphaerica at 53 I refuse to engage in a pointless back and forth with you over your misunderstanding and manipulation of anything I say. FYI - even the IPCC doesn't make the statement in your first bullet. But, I will humor you on your last question. From Climate Change 101's last bullet (and last bullet only!), I can pretty much agree with everything in the following paragraph. Can you? "It is possible to prepare for climate change and to avert the worst effects of it, but to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening and make informed choices as individuals and communities based on the scientific evidence. Information alone is not enough to choose appropriate policies and strategies to limit some climate changes and prepare society for changes that are already well under way, but without understanding the basic causes and effects of climate change, we will be unable to make informed decisions that will affect generations to come."
    0 0
55. John Hartz at 03:51 AM on 27 January, 2012
    apiratelooksat50 & Sphaerica: It would benefit everyone if the two of you would take your Hatfieild-McCoy feud off-line. You guys have previously communicated via email. Please do so again.
    0 0
56. Trent1492 at 05:00 AM on 27 January, 2012
    I am sorry to stay off topic, but I think it might be helpful to have a page of climate linked modern extinction events that is regularly updated.
    0 0
57. John Hartz at 08:10 AM on 27 January, 2012
    Here’s another piece of the puzzle… On January 16, the Los Angeles Times revealed that anti-science bills have been popping up over the past several years in statehouses across the U.S., mandating the teaching of climate change denial or "skepticism" as a credible "theoretical alternative" to human caused climate change came. The L.A. Times' Neela Banerjee explained, "Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. South Dakota and Utah passed resolutions denying climate change. Tennessee and Oklahoma also have introduced legislation to give climate change skeptics a place in the classroom." What the excellent Times coverage missed is that key language in these anti-science bills all emanated from a single source: the American Legislative Exchange Council, or ALEC. Source: “ALEC Model Bill Behind Push to Require Climate Denial Instruction in Schools” by Steve Horn, DeSmog Blog, Jan 27, 2012 To access this detailed expose, click here.
    0 0
58. Bob Lacatena at 08:57 AM on 27 January, 2012
    54, Pirate, The problem with your interpretation of that last bullet point is that you appear to be reading the phrase "to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening" as an implicit admission that "we don't know," when what they are actually saying is "we do know, and we need you as a teacher to convey that knowledge to those that do not know." As far as what the IPCC says about human activities causing climate change, first that is now 5 years old. What they said then you can see here, such as:

    Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations.

    But times have changed. Consider these recent posts (Huber and Knutti 2011 and Foster and Rhamstorf) here on Skeptical Science, covering the latest research. The upshot is that when you separate natural and anthropogenic causes, the warming is obvious, and natural factors are most likely to have contributed a net cooling effect. This means that not only is all of the warming you see today anthropogenic in origin, but it would also be even worse if not for the cooling factors. 55, John Hartz, No. This is a post about teaching the science, and Pirate is a science teacher. If this is not an appropriate topic of debate on this site, then what is?
    0 0
59. John Hartz at 10:15 AM on 27 January, 2012
    @Sphaerica #58: My suggestion that you and Pirate take your discussion off-line had to do with the deteriorating tone of your exchanges. I purposely did not post my suggestion as a Moderator's comment.
    0 0
60. muoncounter at 12:53 PM on 27 January, 2012
    John Hartz#57: I can't find any first-hand source for the story about new Texas education standards. Everyone has quoted the LA Times article, Texas and Louisiana have introduced education standards that require educators to teach climate change denial as a valid scientific position. But there are no citations in this article and a search turns up nothing other than websites and blogs repeating the same story without further details. One source may be from late November, here: At last week’s meeting in Austin, state board members began mapping out the schedule for adopting textbooks and curriculum standards over the next decade. Although they won’t make any final decisions until early next year, board members considered a schedule that would have them adopting new science textbooks in 2013 There's an ongoing struggle for textbook language, with nothing new about climate change education beyond the 2009 textbook standards. There will be an election for the State Board of Education this year; a right-wing takeover could start this ball rolling again, but it appears to be on hold for now. Oklahoma is another story: The bill would, if enacted, require the state board of education to assist teachers and administrators in promoting "critical thinking, logical analysis, open and objective discussion of scientific theories including, but not limited to, evolution, the origin of life, global warming, and human cloning" Louisiana has such legislation on its books since 2008. The buzz words are once again 'teach both sides, let the kids decide,' which is straight out of the ID playbook.
    0 0
61. apiratelooksat50 at 04:06 AM on 28 January, 2012
    In South Carolina for Environmental Science, we don't have any state direction on teaching climate change other than our curriculum and pacing guides. We assess knowledge retention with District based 9-weeks tests and are moving toward a statwide end of course test. I would imagine that if this was put in place it would be treated by the individual teachers about like we treat evolution - which as you know is a topic that is polarizing. Our state guidance is that we present evolution as a well-supported theory. The student does not have to believe in evolution, but is responsible for understanding the mechanisms and other facts. We do not offer any religious based theories due to separation of church and state. I push the limits on teaching evolution, while others shy away from it and do the bare minimum. And, FWIW, from our Holt Environmental Science textbook is the following excerpt from an Active Reading worksheet in the Climate Change section: "Many scientists think that the increasing greenhouse gases in our atmosphere result in increasing the average temperature on Earth. The result, they believe, will be a warmer Earth. This predicted increase in global temperature is known as global warming. Earth’s average global temperature increased during the 20th century. Many scientists project that the warming trend that began in the 20th century will continue throughout the 21st century. However, not all scientists agree that the observed global warming is due to greenhouse gases. Some scientists believe that the warming is part of natural climatic variability. They point out that widespread fluctuations in temperature have occurred throughout geologic time."
    0 0
62. Daniel Bailey at 04:15 AM on 28 January, 2012
    @ apiratelooksat50

    "They point out that widespread fluctuations in temperature have occurred throughout geologic time."

    You omit the understood caveats: that said fluctuations occurred due to known forcings and feedbacks, none of which explain the warming of the past 50 years without the consideration of the radiative physics of CO2. And that the rate of change of those past fluctuations occurred at geologic changes, which contrasts to the extreme rate of change of temps and CO2 over the past 50 years, which is without parallel in the paleo record. Thus, you continue to prosecute your agenda of manufactured doubt and delay. You dissemble.
    0 0
63. muoncounter at 04:32 AM on 28 January, 2012
    pirate#61: "our Holt Environmental Science textbook" That is because Texas is a major buyer of textbooks in the US - and publishers write to conform to Texas' educational standards. Texas' conservative-dominated SBOE has this policy since 2009: in all fields of science, analyze, evaluate, and critique scientific explanations by using empirical evidence, logical reasoning, and experimental and observational testing, including examining all sides of scientific evidence of those scientific explanations, so as to encourage critical thinking by the student. On the surface, this is benign; in reality it can be insidious because it creates the false impression of equivalence between sides. If 'all sides' are to be evaluated, all sides get to present their 'evidence'. Hence demand for Michaels and his ilk to creatively edit. All sides: objects fall because they 'want to'. Let the kids decide. Science by popular consent. Sounds like fun.
    0 0
64. apiratelooksat50 at 06:41 AM on 28 January, 2012
    DB at 62 You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out. As I stated that is from an Active Reading worksheet and is a direct cut/paste. I am simply showing what the textbook has in print. This is what the typical student sees and is taught and is assessed on. The textbook chapter and section pertaining to climate change goes further in depth, but is not up to date with the latest information as it was printed in 2008. The other textbooks we reviewed last year and considered for adoption offered very similar information. Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time.
    0 0
65. Daniel Bailey at 06:49 AM on 28 January, 2012
    @ apiratelooksat50

    "You are making an assumption that has no basis. I did not leave anything out."

    Not the part missing from the text; that is understandably lacking. What is missing is the proper context (to which I referred) that is missing for students such as yours to be able to properly understand the text you reference. Since it was lacking from the text, it is your job as their educator to provide that context. By failing to provide that context you are biasing their education. Hence my concluding statement:

    "Thus, you continue to prosecute your agenda of manufactured doubt and delay. You dissemble."

    0 0
66. Bob Lacatena at 07:00 AM on 28 January, 2012
    64, Pirate, Then the textbooks suck. Note that "some scientists" equals a handful of fringe scientists that honestly in any sane world would be discredited and dismissed. The way you cling to the denial tripe is just astounding. Even when you were shown that the very first of your misconceptions (the source of CO2 in the atmosphere) was false as a result of being purposely misled by denial propaganda, you still persist in believing only those end results that appeal to you (e.g. no extinctions have yet occurred due to climate change) and your thought process stops there. You "choose" what to teach, and give your students the option of "believing" what they choose, because you yourself have not and will not tackle the task of actually understanding that which you are supposed to teach, and that which you are so vocal about voicing an opinion. Please forgive my frustration with you, but you wasted my time by pretending to care about the science, while everything I sent was ignored and your reply would always consist of "what about..."? No matter how much information I gave explaining your fallacies, you said you had no time, but still trotted out more nonsense to consume my time. You are doing yourself, your community, and your students a grave disservice by carrying and promoting such a strongly held opinion from a position of extreme ignorance. That there are other people as misled and foolishly biased as you does not provide an adequate excuse. You are a teacher, and twenty years from today you will have to look in the mirror and take a healthy portion of the blame for the sort of world your students are going to have to live in -- and there will be no time machine that lets you go back and correct your errors.
    0 0
67. Bob Lacatena at 07:05 AM on 28 January, 2012
    64, Pirate, In fact, a good teacher should look at those text books, go to the local and state boards of education, and stand up and say "We have a problem here, these books do not reflect the state of the science. We are teaching commercial instead of scientific positions and that's not what a school system should be doing. Knowledge and facts should not be for sale to the highest bidder, any more than political power should be (but is)."
    0 0
68. muoncounter at 07:15 AM on 28 January, 2012
    pirate#64: "Any teacher wanting to go more in-depth would have to own their own, but would be constrained by time." Some would say the textbook is a starting point, rather than an ending point. One could argue that a very valid 'critical thinking' exercise would be to ask how well the textbook agreed with current research. Of course, a teacher has to want to go more in-depth ... or want their students to question what is written in the textbook. Modeling that behavior may catch on; we could call it being 'skeptical' or some such. How hard could it be, given websites such as NCSE's Climate 101 and that other Skeptical whatchamacallit one. But if that's not what you might want, I suppose there's no reason to find the time.
    0 0
69. John Hartz at 09:30 AM on 28 January, 2012
    This caught my eye: As usual, when we write about such efforts to muddy the scientific waters, there will be those who argue that we are "stifling debate" or silencing critics. We are not. We are asking that science education be based on an understanding of the science, not a reading of the latest opinion polls or the hyper-partisan political debates of the day. We don't teach our kids "two sides" of the debate on whether tobacco causes cancer (despite a long history of corporate efforts to sew doubt and encourage "debate" on that issue), so why would we kowtow to corporate misinformation on climate change too? Even the oil industry is planning for dangerous climate change. These backroom dealings are just attempts to delay the inevitable. Source: “How Oil Money is Corrupting Our Children's Education” by Sami Grover, Treehugger, Jan 27, 2012 To access the entire article, click here.
    0 0
70. adelady at 10:19 AM on 28 January, 2012
    muoncounter 'I can't find any first-hand source for the story about new Texas education standards.' Perhaps some of what you're after might be found here at Desmogblog
    0 0
71. apiratelooksat50 at 04:07 AM on 29 January, 2012
    DB at 65 You have no idea what I provide in my classroom, therefore your statement is patently false and offensive. Regardless of my position on this issue, I teach the students what is in the textbook since that is what they will be tested on. Then we augment that with current events, research papers, moderated debates, position papers, etc... FYI - SKS is on their provided list of websites to access for information. We are limited by time since there is a curriculum pacing guide we have to follow. We have 180 days with students in the classroom. Some of those days are spent on testing and others on administrative tasks. Following is an excerpt from the AP Environmental Syllabus which can be found in its entirety here. NOTE: Question #2 in the Sample Free Response Questions is about climate change. You might find it interesting. VII. Global Change (10–15%) A. Stratospheric Ozone (Formation of stratospheric ozone; ultraviolet radiation; causes of ozone depletion; effects of ozone depletion; strategies for reducing ozone depletion; relevant laws and treaties) B. Global Warming (Greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect; impacts and consequences of global warming; reducing climate change; relevant laws and treaties) C. Loss of Biodiversity 1. Habitat loss; overuse; pollution; introduced species; endangered and extinct species 2. Maintenance through conservation 3. Relevant laws and treaties So, at best, Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change section (of which global warming is only part) since the students are assessed on the entire breadth of the course.
    0 0
72. Daniel Bailey at 04:16 AM on 29 January, 2012
    Perhaps you find the statement close to the mark then. This all stems from your earlier comment which was a context-free quote from a textbook. It was pointed out to you the fallacy of the statement without the context the science provides. Apirate, the reason you are not taken seriously here anymore is illustrated in the exchanges on this thread: You continually post from a position of preconception and ignore or downplay that which contradicts that position. That is not science, it is ideology. To teach science from that standpoint is an abomination.
    0 0
73. apiratelooksat50 at 04:21 AM on 29 January, 2012
    Sphaerica at 66 and 67 Teachers are provided a selection of textbooks to choose from. We review and make recommendations to the District Office on the one we want to adopt. We make that decision based on accuracy of information and the accompanying materials. I personally do not like our current textbook and opted for another publisher. I do not know how the other Env. Sci. teachers in the district voted, but regardless we did not get new books due to budget issues. As a good teacher, I can only affect what textbooks are selected to a certain degree. The citizens of the state can put pressure on local schoolboards more effectively. Heck, I'm pretty sure at least one of SKS moderators who has posted in this thread lives in this state and could take a role as a taxpaying citizen in textbook adoption.
    0 0
74. John Hartz at 04:36 AM on 29 January, 2012
    @Daniel Bailey: With all due respect, I am one SkS author who continues to take apiratelooksat50 seriously. I know from personal experince (which predates Pirate's posting on SkS) that interacting with him can at times be very exasperating. I also know from personal experience that when I let my emotions take control, I over-react to what people post on a comment thread and invariably get into a heated exchange with them. As someone who has closely followed the recent exhanges between Pirate and SkS moderators/authors, I urge you all of you to leave your emotions at the door and stick to a straight-forward objective discussion of the issues at hand. Easier said than done, eh!
    0 0
75. muoncounter at 04:57 AM on 29 January, 2012
    adelady#70: I looked through all of that information on desmogblog. They quote the LA Times article; they do not provide any new information about specific education policy. The money trail and influence-buying is certainly a web of corruption. I suspect that we will be drowned in new policy initiatives after the state education board elections in November.
    0 0
76. Stephen Baines at 04:59 AM on 29 January, 2012
    Pirate, To provide a specific example in support of DB's assessment, after I made the following comment "More generally, when thinking of biodiversity loss, it's very hard to make a credible argument that changing climate will not, on average, have a net negative influence on the persistence of species..." You responded with "I have no objection to your last paragraph. I think your rationale is accurate and would not pose an argument to it. Some will benefit, some will suffer. But, as we know things now, they will certainly change. " (my emphasis) You claim to agree with what I say, but then restate my position so that it no longer resembles what I initially wrote. I can't tell if this is unconscious or not on your part. But I can tell you that it's maddening! Given the dissembling that is common about the web on this topic, it is easy to believe you are dissembling yourself. As for your last comment, I actually empathise with the plight of science teachers regarding text books. People are generally too quick to blame teachers for insufficiencies in science education. I think systemic problems play a key role as well. Teachers are often caught between teaching to standards on which they are strictly evaluated, and having to pick books from a limited selection that are in turn heavily influenced by the peculiar politics of one particular state. These factors place a serious constraint on time and resources available to delve into topics in depth in ways that promote critical thinking.
    0 0
77. muoncounter at 05:15 AM on 29 January, 2012
    pirate#71: "Environmental Science teachers have 18-27 days to cover the Global Change" You quote only one section (Section VII Global Change) from the AP Environmental Science course description. Sections I (Earth systems), II (The Living World), IV (Land and Water Use), V (Energy Resources and consumption) and VI (Pollution) all have topics that could be thematically tied to issues of climate change. So this 'time limitation' you claim is your choice: It is often known as 'teaching to the test.' In the US, Advanced Placement courses typically expect a higher level of work than is the case in 'regular' or even 'advanced' high school subjects. AP EnvSci is designed to be the equivalent of a one semester, introductory college course in environmental science. How difficult would it be to assign research problems throughout the year that tie the course to a unifying theme - man's impact on the environment, for example? As a result, you would not be tied to these time limits. But you have to see the need to do that.
    0 0
78. John Hartz at 05:57 AM on 29 January, 2012
    @muoncounter #75: You might want to sound out Katherine Hayhoe about what's going on in Texas with respect to science textbooks.
    0 0
79. apiratelooksat50 at 06:37 AM on 29 January, 2012
    SB at 76 My apologies. That was unintentional. And your last paragraph is spot on!
    0 0
80. apiratelooksat50 at 06:46 AM on 29 January, 2012
    Muon @ 77 You make a good point about weaving in climate change in the other units, and we can and often do just that. But, pursuant to what SB posted in 76, there are constraints and we have to hit the key ideas in each unit since that is what students (and teachers) are assessed on.
    0 0
81. muoncounter at 07:24 AM on 29 January, 2012
    pirate: From the AP ES course webpage 'Special Focus: Energy and Climate Change', in an article starting on p. 20: Although global warming is one of the key environmental topics of today, few environmental textbooks provide a satisfying scientific explanation of the phenomenon. The people who write the exams are thus endorsing the point: one cannot teach by relying on textbooks alone. Textbooks are a starting point, not an endpoint.
    0 0
82. apiratelooksat50 at 10:03 AM on 29 January, 2012
    Muon at 81 Thanks for pointing this out and we do use a lot of this material. Our Honors Physics teacher has even picked it up for his class. I often use other materials beside our textbook. As a matter of fact, this year I requested that we do not issue books to students and instead use a classroom set. Anything they need for homework can be accomplished by handouts, or they can "check out" a book from my room.
    0 0
83. adelady at 12:06 PM on 29 January, 2012
    pirate - The latest update to climate zones for gardeners could be a handy starting point for discussions. Chicago Sun-Times No idea what would or wouldn't be suitable for various year standards. (I find myself quite disheartened when my tutoring students turn up with handouts or textbooks that I think belong in curriculum for 2 or 3 years earlier. That could just be a sign of grumpy-old-lady-ness. Standards have dropped since my day, hrrrrmpph.)
    0 0
84. Old Mole at 17:49 PM on 29 January, 2012
    Forgive me for intruding on your learned discussion. I don't have a degree, know diddly squat about climate science and even less about frogs. What I do know, and can defend in most discussions, is that: 1. Climate change is real 2. It is happening right now 3. We are doing it 4. We had better get our act together and do something about it right quick, or things are going to get really bad, really soon SkS has certainly helped with my understanding, and consequently defend the positions, and I thank Dr. Cook and his cohorts for all the work they do ... and for the fundamental point that the science is evaluated through the entire body of evidence. That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less, that a single paper (Pounds) "proves" something, or that another paper that cites Pounds (Thomas) is further proof. Frankly, that it the sort of reasoning I usually find over at Watts Up With That?, when they are discussing Soon and whatsername, or Christie or Lindzen. When pirate cited two more recent studies that apparently came to different conclusions, I didn't hear a peep about those, but got more about how Pounds was conclusive. Can't say I like the pattern. I don't think that just because the basic facts of climate science are settled, that all questions in science have been proven so conclusively ... and for all I know, the question of frog extinction might be one of them. I am not interested enough in frogs to check. But it sounds to me like pirate knows his frogs, however chuckleheaded he might be on climate change. You might cut him some slack, though ... he is from South Carolina, home of Bob Jones, Parris Island and Jim DeMint, so his view that global warming might not be a discredited hoax and a socialist plot to wreck the American economy already mark him as a dangerous radical, subject to summary lynching. While he might possibly be right about the exact wording of the first bullet point concerning extinction, his quotation from the last bullet point makes it clear that it needs to be withdrawn and revised: "It is possible to prepare for climate change and to avert the worst effects of it, but to do so we need to understand why climate change is happening and make informed choices as individuals and communities based on the scientific evidence. Information alone is not enough to choose appropriate policies and strategies to limit some climate changes and prepare society for changes that are already well under way, but without understanding the basic causes and effects of climate change, we will be unable to make informed decisions that will affect generations to come." That wording, as others have pointed out, is far too ambiguous and subject to misinterpretation ... it has no business being used as a teaching tool when you know it will be misinterpreted. Best wishes.
    0 0
85. Rob Painting at 19:42 PM on 29 January, 2012
    Old Mole - "That's why I am flummoxed when hearing, from muon no less..." No need to be flummoxed there are a vast number of peer-reviewed scientific papers dealing with extinctions relating to global warming. You are grossly misrepresenting the situation, if you believe there is only one paper. Frogs, lizards, birds, butterflies have all gone extinct from global warming, and many, many thousands are poised at the precipice right now. Did you miss the current rate of amphibian extinction is 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians? We'll be covering a number of these global warming-driven extinctions in the future.
    0 0
86. Tristan at 21:57 PM on 29 January, 2012
    This is somewhat off-topic and could conceivably be considered advertising, but have any of the staff at this site considered promoting and/or reviewing the following game? I ask here because I'd be interested to hear pirate's view wrt incorporating such software into the education sphere in the US. It seems to be a powerful way of engaging young minds, it's thought provoking and built on the foundations of climate science and economics.
    0 0
87. apiratelooksat50 at 03:30 AM on 30 January, 2012
    Rob Painting at 85 Are you stating that Malcolm L. McCallum's 2007 paper about "Amphibian Decline or Extinction?..." (found here) confirms global warming driven extinction? If so, it doesn't appear that you read past the abstract that you linked to back at #50. If you had you would have noticed that climate change was mentioned exactly once in the entire paper, and that was part of a list of potential causes which I paraphrase below. (For the complete text see the above link.) "The potential causes are numerous and include habitat degradation and loss, introduced species, pollution, contaminants, pathogens, climate change, or interactions among several factors Many of these implicated stressors trace directly or indirectly back to humans." There are numerous reasons for the increased extinction rate and of those climate change may be one and may also work synergistically with others. All of those potential reasons and their interactions need to be studied and acted on as necessary. Having a laser-like focus on just one cause is dangerous and not proper science. For instance, Mendelson and the IUCN are referenced in the paper for the following information. Since 1500 35 amphibian species have gone extinct, and 9 of those have occurred since 1980. Those numbers could be as high as 130 extinctions with 122 since 1980. Mendelson points to the chytrid fungus as the cause of the acceleration. That is not saying that climate change is not an issue, but it is saying that learning ways to combat chytrid is of greater importance. One promising treatment is using bacteria which lessens the mortality rate. It could be applied to large areas of soil and water.
    0 0
88. Rob Painting at 08:51 AM on 30 January, 2012
    Pirate - as stated earlier in this thread there is a vast amount of literature of global warming -driven extinction. I'll get around to writing about it, but I'm busy on other topics. Glad I've actually prompted you to do some research, but all you've done is search for material that confirms your preconceived notions, and ignored the rest. "If so, it doesn't appear that you read past the abstract that you linked to back at #50" Iv'e read the paper, but you don't appear to have taken on board what this means. Rather than being all hunky-dory as you try to assert - amphibians are in deep deep trouble. 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians!? It puts things into perspective does it not? Having a laser-like focus on just one cause is dangerous and not proper science This is just a strawman argument. I made clear in comment @10 the reality of the situation. "The trouble is humans extinguish plants and animals in so many different ways, not only by making it too warm." One doesn't have to be that well read to realize that human disruption of natural environments extends well beyond global warming itself. This is a climate-oriented blog, so aside from mentioning these other factors, we don't into those other details. Most readers would understand this.
    0 0
89. Rob Painting at 12:30 PM on 30 January, 2012
    There you took a statement from Sphaerica (that he falsified from me) and made a response that shows your insistence on focusing on the buzzwords like "climate change" or "global warming" that you see in articles or published papers. If you really read the paper, you would realize it does little, or nothing, to support your premise. Words like 'global warming' and 'climate change' are anathema to a fake-skeptic, but really so what? Your conduct here is exceedingly obvious - you wish to downplay the significance of global warming-related extinction, but the scientific literature does not support you. If you think amphibian populations can be sustained with such a phenomenal rate of extinction you are simply deluding yourself. Other people do not possess this cognitive ability to ignore reality - least of all those studying the natural world. The fact that you have "...researched climate science, in an amateur capacity, for 4 years." shows. I get this a lot with fake-skeptics, when their argument has been thoroughly refuted, but my response is always the same - an appeal to authority is worthless if you have none. Being a school teacher means what exactly in terms of expertise? In fact the enormous number of wrong-headed posts you have made here really destroys such a notion. I don't claim to be an expert - that would be foolish. I just happen to be right about the topics I have thoroughly researched. And if I have an issue or question I bother to contact the scientist whose papers I'm writing about. Some are extraordinarily helpful in fact. That's why fake-skeptics have to resort to concern trolling, talking around in circles, saying their not clear on something, and those kinds of rhetorical devices. SkS blog posts are robust because they are so staunchly supported by the scientific literature upon which they are based. Don't think we haven't noticed. No, real experts are those that publish in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, and whose work stands up to scrutiny by other experts. Those are the people whose work we research and understand. That is the foundation of all posts here. That's why SkS posts stand up to scrutiny. Fake-skeptics objections flounder because they are essentially arguing with the experts and the overwhelming evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. "........you managed to make more direct in #50." Here's what I wrote at @ 50. " Sphaerica- "and even if it is it won't be bad" Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. As far as amphibians are concerned, it's hard to see much of a future for many of them. Their current rate of extinction may be 25,039–45,474 times the background extinction rate for amphibians. And that is not a typo." All factually-based. All supported by the scientific literature. Do you really think that that won't be bad? Amphibians already appear well on their way to oblivion. "As I teach my students, when investigating environmental issues all factors must be considered and accepted or discarded as warranted.' Hopefully your students are taught not to just take your word, and to actually research the scientific literature, all of it, to glean a thorough understanding of why scientists studying the natural world are so concerned about global warming. I'm sure it would be a real eye-opener for them. "I am very interested in the postings on global warming and extinctions you plan to publish in the future" I'm sure some will be surprised the by the gravity of the situation. It's beyond trivializing. And it won't be just me writing about them. I think it's important to deflate the skeptic myth "It won't be bad" once and for all. But it's going to be a biggie of a collection.
    0 0
90. Chris G at 16:28 PM on 30 January, 2012
    Pirate, As a science teacher, you are obligated to teach your students the predominant understanding of today. You are doing them a disservice otherwise. Climate changes in the past are associated with mass extinctions; getting too hung up on the wording used at one source, and the particulars about what it means, is not really helping your students. Personally, I think the rate of recent extinctions, overall has more to do with the explosive growth of the homo sapiens species. I don't know how 7 billion people can exist on the planet and not push some other species out of the resources they need. Some extinctions are undoubtedly a result of changing environmental conditions, but climate change is only getting warmed up. On the school board and science standards, I was disheartened and infuriated when the school board here in Kansas was taken over by a bunch of right-wingers who mandated teaching of intelligent design. However, as it played out, the following year there was a turnover of the board, and that decision was reversed before it could be implemented. Here's hoping sanity triumphs elsewhere.
    0 0
91. John Hartz at 01:08 AM on 31 January, 2012
    Recommended reading: “The overwhelming scientific evidence that says humans are causing the warming of the planet has emerged as the new battlefield in middle and high schools in the U.S.” Source: “Conservatives Use Creationist Playbook to Attack Climate Change Education in Schools” by Bill Walker, Alternet, Jan 26, 2012 To access this in-depth analysis, click here.
    0 0
92. apiratelooksat50 at 01:19 AM on 31 January, 2012
    Rob Painting at 89 If you think amphibian populations can be sustained with such a phenomenal rate of extinction you are simply deluding yourself. On the contrary, I think the decline of amphibian species is particularly distressing. Especially, since they are an indicator species. Being a school teacher means what exactly in terms of expertise? I am not just a school teacher. Teaching is a second career that I have the pleasure of doing after I started my environmental consulting company. I have a Bachelor of Science Degree in Biology, and Master of Science degree in Fisheries and Wildlife Biology, and I have over 25 years experience in the environmental field. Fake-skeptics objections flounder because they are essentially arguing with the experts and the overwhelming evidence. Sorry, but that's just the way we roll. Is anything I posted about the status of amphibians and the status of their decline incorrect? If so, please point it out. I provided links to peer-reviewed papers. "........you managed to make more direct in #50." Here's what I wrote at @ 50. Well, the birds, butterflies, lizards and amphibians that have already become extinct from global warming paint a rather different picture. Please list the species and differentiate between direct and indirect extinctions due to global warming. Hopefully your students are taught not to just take your word, and to actually research the scientific literature, all of it,... They are expressedly directed to do that. It's one of the first things I tell them and reiterate throughout the year. I am looking forward to future posts from you on this topic. Are we talking near future?
    0 0
93. apiratelooksat50 at 01:48 AM on 31 January, 2012
    Chris G at 90 Thanks, and regardless of other's peoples misconceptions on here, I do teach my students the current/predominant state of science and robustly encourage them to explore on their own. At the beginning of the year we drill into them the scientific method, and teach them how to research. Other than the regular search engines, we also have access to other sites through our school links, and the libraries of local colleges and universities. It's not about getting hung up on a word. It's about better accuracy. Prior to issuing our first writing assignments, all science teachers in our district work with our students on the importance using the proper words in the proper context. For instance, the differences between probability and possibility, how to use may, shall, will, suggests, etc...
    0 0
94. Daniel Bailey at 02:30 AM on 31 January, 2012
    Ah, so you're saying that you no longer provide your students with copies of, or links to, Inhofe's "A Skeptic’s Guide to Debunking Global Warming Alarmism"? You remember, the one you had posted at the very top of your student's reading list last year?
    0 0
95. apiratelooksat50 at 02:06 AM on 1 February, 2012
    DB at 94 I don't have and have never had a required reading list. Yes, the link was there along with other links presenting both sides of this issue. Which you conveniently failed to mention that. It was left over from an Honors Chemistry course I used to teach. The students were presented various viewpoints and asked to write critiques of them. If you wish, you can go check my PowerPoint presentation for Climate Change and tell me if you have any issues with it. I doubt you will. If you need the link, let me know. I am not sure if I am allowed to provide it here. I can also provide you with my consulting companies website if allowed. Thanks
    0 0

Prev  1  2  

You need to be logged in to post a comment. Login via the left margin or if you're new, register here.