"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron promoted by Marxists. If it is real science, it is provable thru experimentation and observation. There is no majority vote on E=MC2.
Scientists insist that teaching the controversy—and not the consensus—is a dereliction of duty and a propagation of falsehood.
Translation: this is secular dogma. Honest scientific inquiry is not permitted. Heresy against dogma MUST be punished.
Shows who the actual free thinkers are in today's society.
When did Global Warming stop being a theory?
So stop teaching the consensus, consensus is NOT valid scientific method!
I loved the part where the author bemoans the ‘intensifying global warming,’ what intensifying...I froze my butt off this past winter and this summer doesn’t even put some legs on the tomatoes!
Proof that our entire school system is nothing more today than public indoctrination centers.
History will look back at how America fell and the key will be the public indoctrination centers.
Politics today are the result of political correctness and the hate of the white working male that was taught in all levels of these indoctrination centers...from public school through college.
In 1965 they were teaching us that we’d be in an ice age by 1975. They said we’d be out of oil by 1970. When we got to 1970 the moved it to 1980. It has since been indexing forward under names like “peak oil.” I was scared to death as a kid. Now I realize a lot of what I learned was propaganda. It’s still propaganda but it’s now anti-western, anti-American and anti-white.
We basically need to get government out of education.
Really? This is a statement of faith, rather than science, especially given what we know about the falsification of climate data.
If it was simply a recognition that "climate" is always changing, one way or another, that would be unquestionably accurate, but the context doesn't indicate this.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/younger_dryas_to_present_time_line1.png
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/globalwarming2.html
Whenever you run into a AGW kook, ask him to explain the MWP (medieval warm period) followed by the LIA (Little Ice Age).
Most likely they had never heard of either one.
By the way, it was during the MWP that America was discovered, and Europe flourished.
“Scientists insist that teaching the controversy—and not the consensus—is a dereliction of duty and a propagation of falsehood.”
In other words “you disagreed, shut up and drink your hemlock”.
This has been debunked so many times that every time I read it I want to scream, but they still keep throwing it out.
Sigh...
97% of climate scientists, eh? You mean the guys who are dependent on grants for their livelihood? Do THEY back their position with EVIDENCE like the students are challenged to do? And how firm is that 97% number?
DoublegoodGroupThink.
A good teacher points her students to many facts and allows them to draw their conclusions. My class, with many misgivings on my part, had a presentation they prepared on AGW. I needn’t have worried. Half of the class presented Algore and the other half refuted it. Truth always will win.
The consensus opinion is always correct.
You can't tell them that explicitly, since the data connecting human activity and global climate change just isn't there. In fact, the data supporting the hypothesis that carbon dioxide is a driver (not a responder) of global temperature just isn't there.
The hypothesis is based in the fact that carbon dioxide has a wide fluorescent band in the infrared frequencies. Most substances have fairly narrow fluorescence bands in comparison. (You might see fluorescence referred to as "absorbance." Absorbance is only half of the picture--all substances that absorb photons of light also emit them; absorbance + emission = fluorescence.) When a photon is absorbed, it is almost immediately emitted at a lower energy, and the extra energy becomes kinetic energy of the molecule. While that kinetic energy is equivalent to heat, there is a limit on how much of this process can go on. Eventually, the energy of the photons is too low, making the wavelength too long for the CO2 to absorb it--so no further absorption occurs, and no feedback loops exist. As this blog post points out, the limiting factor on how much energy can enter the atmosphere in this way is the amount of IR radiation entering the atmosphere, not the quantity of CO2. And the quantity of IR radiation is nothing that anyone can control.
What an irony it would be if world governments spent gazillions to fix something that doesn’t exist and by doing so devastated these ‘educator’s’ budgets. Imagine the howls and screams.
Oh, the horrors!!
I've been saying for years that this period of time in our history will be looked at as the Dark Ages Part Deux.
I watch Suspicious Observer on You Tube every mornimg...and so should school kids....and this man made BS global warmimg debate would be over!
No longer is the public schools promoting patriotism...no longer teaching the truth of history...no longer instructing students how to think for themselves.....tbis society is falling...and with the students today graduating without any form of social skills...will become dormant soon enough...
(excerpted)
No smoking hot spot1. The greenhouse signature is missing. We have been looking and measuring for years, and cannot find it.
Each possible cause of global warming has a different pattern of where in the planet the warming occurs first and the most. The signature of an increased greenhouse effect is a hot spot about 10km up in the atmosphere over the tropics. We have been measuring the atmosphere for decades using radiosondes: weather balloons with thermometers that radio back the temperature as the balloon ascends through the atmosphere. They show no hot spot. Whatsoever.
If there is no hot spot then an increased greenhouse effect is not the cause of global warming. So we know for sure that carbon emissions are not a significant cause of the global warming. If we had found the greenhouse signature then I would be an alarmist again.
Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that global warming is underway and human activity is the primary cause.
"JUST the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried,
As he landed his crew with care;
Supporting each man on the top of the tide
By a finger entwined in his hair.
"Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice:
That alone should encourage the crew.
Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice:
What I tell you three times is true."
From: "The Hunting of the Snark" by Lewis Carroll
And in a nutshell, that's what's wrong with "education" today. It's all about teaching rote facts (and the theory du jour as fact) instead of giving students the TOOLS they need to succeed after school.
Math and English are basics. The sciences are more about teaching the scientific method and logic. History/Social Studies develops critical thinking.
Innovation comes from CHALLENGING the consensus, not accepting it. If not, we'd all still be believing the earth was flat, and that the sun revolved around the earth.
"Scientific consensus" is an oxymoron promoted by Marxists. If it is real science, it is provable thru experimentation and observation. There is no majority vote on E=MC2.