We’re Not Scaring Our Kids About Global Warming Enough


Says NPR.  A story Wednesday  morning featured a courageous teacher who decided to teach her students about the effects of Global Climate Change.  

But first, the bad news:

A study in the journal Science this spring found that half of U.S. science teachers spend less than two hours on climate change each year.

This of course means that about 50% of all science teachers in the U.S. spend more than 2 hours on climate change.  Two hours seems a lot.  Of course they tracked down a teacher spending a lot more time on it:

“You can’t depress the hell out of them … if you want them to start looking for solutions,” she says. “So I don’t really go there. Do I feel that way personally? Yes … but in class I put on my happy face.”

If she can explain this diagram and the seasons, I’d be surprised.

A pivotal moment in Vazquez’s class often comes when her students open an app called Eyes on the Rise, where they plug in their address and learn how far they live above sea level.

“One kid will say, ‘I’m 10 feet above sea level. I’m going to be OK,’ ” Vazquez explains. “I’ll say ‘Yeah, you’ll be on a little hill, but what about everybody else around you? We’re all in this boat together.’ “

Way to go, not depressing the hell out of them!  And, guess what?  You can’t hide the fact that you’re depressed about climate change!  The kids heard the story!

Please teach the kids science.  

_________________________________________________________________

 

Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore, PhD:

Is the Earth warming? Well, yes, there’s been slight warming in the past 300 years since the peak of the Little Ice Age. But guess what? There’s no scientific proof that this is caused by carbon dioxide.  And simply asserting a hypothesis does not prove it to be true.

But that doesn’t stop environmentalists, activists, and the most troubling – politicians – from calling carbon dioxide a toxic pollutant that will destroy life and bring civilization to its knees.

Additionally, there’s significant evidence for continuous global climate change forever. We had a few ice ages without the influence of mankind, and in between the ice ages, the globe warmed.  We don’t remember this because it was so long ago.

Moore is recording a video series on the whole subject:




 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Education, Global Climate, Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

12 Responses to We’re Not Scaring Our Kids About Global Warming Enough

  1. Charles Hudson says:

    I jotted down these questions a while ago after reading another “alarming” weather article.
    – Charles Hudson
    ———————————————

    “… another record…”

    Another record compared to what?

    Do we get to see the raw data and subsequent comparisons and calculations?

    Can we get a list of where the measurements were made? Do we get to know what kind
    of instruments were used and when those instruments were physically put in place?

    Were extrapolations used to arrive at “… another record…”, or do there exist
    simple measurements over time which we get to see and compare?

    Are we comparing readings taken from thermometers placed within the past 20 years
    with readings from thermometers placed in the 1930’s?

    Are we comparing readings from new digital thermometers with readings from old
    mercury thermometers? How do you compare a reading of 72.3872 with “the needle is
    somewhere between 72 and 73. Or do we just say, “It’s obviously warming!”

    Can we get a simple comparison of readings only from thermometers that have existed
    in place since, say, 1920? 1950?

    If I have 5,000 thermometers in my front yard, and then one day my town reaches a
    record high temperature, did 5,000 locations experience record highs that day?

    If readings from 100 thermometers from the 1920’s are compared with readings from
    1,000,000 thermometers from 2015, would that be 1 record high, 100 record highs, or
    1,000,000 record highs?

    If I place a thermometer at a new location, then take readings every day for year,
    then again every day for the next year, should every day of the second readings be
    touted as “A new record!”? “In fact, every day is new record! And this is just
    one single location! You’re all gonna die!”

    If a thermometer was located out in a field in 1930, then an industrial area grew
    up around that location, thus encircling that thermometer with an artificial urban
    heat island, do climate scientists then stop using readings from that thermometer?
    Shouldn’t they?

    Should temperature readings from artificial urban heat islands even be used when
    calculating natural temperature trends?

    Are modern airport temperature data valid? Weather stations historically sprung up
    at early airports because pilots needed information. Nowadays, airport temperature
    information is also used to calculate temperature trends, even though a lot of
    artificial heat is produced by modern airport activity (see urban heat island).

    If I take a drywall heat gun and point it at an official temperature measuring
    station, will the data gatherers still regard those temperature readings as valid?

    Why is it necessary to go back in time and adjust historical temperature readings
    from the 1930’s from around the world? Were all those thermometers in the 1930’s
    malfunctioning? Were the readings taken incorrectly? Why are the adjustments only
    downward, so that the 1930’s will no longer show as warmer than the 2000’s?

    If the readings from the 1930’s were incorrect, shouldn’t those readings be tossed
    out altogether?

    If the readings from the 1930’s were incorrect, how the heck would we know now, in 2016, what the correct readings from the 1930’s should be? Are you using a computer model to define what the 1930’s readings should be?

    Why is it necessary to keep adjusting computer climate models about future climate
    trends? Were previous computer models inaccurate? How do we know current computer
    climate models are accurate? If we had acted on the previous models, wouldn’t we
    have been making decisions based on wrong information?

    Each time computer climate models undergo adjustment, does that make previous
    climate predictions incorrect? Are the new models now correct only until another
    adjustment is made, at which time they also become incorrect?

    Why did the climate scientists at the University of East Anglia feel it necessary
    to fabricate and/or cherry pick historical temperature data? What’s wrong with
    simply finding out what the true temperature trend is?

    Am I a climate denier for asking these questions?

    There is a big difference between taking measurements over time and then
    calculating change, versus creating computer models that are used to predict
    something in the future that cannot actually be measured until we arrive at that
    point in the future. Predictions, schmictions, let’s see the actual raw historical
    data, unaltered, and the resulting aggregated calculations. And all of the work
    should be peer reviewed. Only then will we have something solid to discuss when it
    comes to temperature change trends. Until then it’s only a football for
    politicians to kick back and forth. For some reason, some scientists nowadays
    seem more oriented toward politics than toward science, and some politicians seem to think they’re scientists.

    Liked by 2 people

  2. Ack – I’ve tried to post something, WordPress says it’s gone through but it’s not showing. Is it because I’ve got some links in it?

    Like

  3. I don’t see anything pending — which means it didn’t arrive on this end. Sorry.

    Like

  4. The climate change folks seem to have trouble with the idea that (within reason) increases in CO2 and temperature mean increasing food production.

    A friend on FB yesterday posted an article about how CO2 ppm had reached 400 and was unlikely to ever again go below that in our lifetime.

    My response?

    “Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.”

    CO2 levels seem to lag behind rather than lead temperature increases/decreases, and if that graph is correct, this about the lowest overall CO2 concentration in geologic history. If the amount goes up, all it’s doing is correcting itself.

    But then it’s like the folks who are getting bent out of shape over the draught in CA, totally ignoring the fact that the last century has actually been abnormally wet in that neck of the woods, and we’re just returning to the climate of 200/300 years ago, like all the AGW folks want us to.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Dr_Mike says:

    Of course, airports should have weather stations. Airplanes need reliable data about the spot they are going to land on.

    But airports have asphalt. More and more asphalt every year. And jet exhaust, which can “gently waft” over the weather station and perhaps add a bit of heat. So maybe, just maybe, that while airports have very good and continuous records, those records maybe shouldn’t be used in monitoring global climate?

    Just a thought…

    Liked by 1 person

    • IIRC, California average temps used to be based on dozens (if not over a hundred) weather stations throughout the entire state, north and south, east and west, coastal and mountain.

      They now use a grand total of THREE stations, all of which are located at coastal airports.

      Gee, do you think that might just affect the state average when you leave out all the high elevation readings?

      Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s