Say, Are We Raising A New Generation That’s Tolerant Of Evaluating Contrasting Scientific Data?

Oh, wait, sorry, sorry, this is about the utter intolerance of the people who say they are pro science, in the same way Stalin was pro-freedom

Imagine America’s next generation are climate deniers
A fight is being waged to ensure the science behind global warming is taught in US schools as some states move to wipe it from the curriculum. Is the United States raising a new generation of climate-change deniers?

Brandie Freeman is a high school science teacher in the southern US state of Georgia. She recently opened her mailbox one morning to find something unpleasant lurking inside: A book, ostensibly a teaching guide, with the title “Why Scientists Disagree About Global Warming.”

The horror, having to look at the cover of a book that might harm her little brain with facts.

Freeman says most of her colleagues in “more liberal” states chucked their copies “straight in the recycling bin.” But in Georgia, which she describes as “very conservative,” Freeman felt the book posed a real danger.

“As soon as you just even open the door to your students that there is doubt among scientists – which there isn’t – then that allows them to have the seed planted that they can go to these climate-skeptic websites.”

So, it rather sounds like belief in anthropogenic climate change is roughly equivalent to being a Scientologist.

One does have to wonder, if the Cult of Climastrology’s science is so sound, why are they afraid to allow other views?

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

15 Responses to “Say, Are We Raising A New Generation That’s Tolerant Of Evaluating Contrasting Scientific Data?”

  1. Jeffery says:

    Other titles from the “publisher”:

    “Why Scientists Disagree About Evolution: The Case for Creation”
    Preface: If Man “Evolved” from Monkeys, Why Are There Sill Monkeys?
    Chapter 1: DNA? Don’t No Anything!
    Chapter 3: The 6000 Year Old Earth: Not Enough Time to Evolve
    Epilogue: Telling Children They Were Monkeys is Cruel and Immoral

    “Why Scientists Disagree About the Dangers of Tobacco”
    Preface: The Liberal War on Your Right to Smoke
    Chapter 1: The Media Ignores All the Good Smoking Does
    Chapter 2: How Smoking Reduces Social Security Expenditures
    Chapter 5: Getting the Feds Out of Healthcare – Making Smoking More Effective

    “Why Scientists Disagree About the Shape of the Earth”
    Chapter 3: If the Earth is Round, Why Don’t Penguins Fall Off Antarctica?

  2. drowningpuppies says:

    Get back to your little climate change coloring book, little guy.
    It’s less stressful if you stay inside the lines.

  3. Jeffery says:

    Contrasting Scientific Data?

    Then it should be simple to construct a cogent argument/hypothesis that explains the current period of rapid warming but that DOESN’T depend on fossil fueled derived CO2!

    • alanstorm says:

      Don’t ever give up, Jeffty.

      No, the ones arguing the novel hypothesis – i.e. AGW – have to explain the Roman climate Optimum and the Medieval Warm Period, et al, and what sort of SUVs the ancients used.

      I bet you were depressed when phlogiston was disproved as well.

    • That’s been done time and again, Jeffrey. Just because you refuse to read/listen and remember is not our fault.

  4. drowningpuppies says:

    Sorry, Teach, but it’s no longer the Cult of Climatology.
    It’s morphed into Climate Scientology.
    You gotta believe or some H.S. teacher named Brandie will say mean things about you.
    The horror!

  5. Jl says:

    Again, rapid warming compared to what, J? As you say, it should be simple to construct a cogent arguement that explains how you know it’s rapid. Good luck

  6. Jl says:

    And as said, we don’t have to “prove” anything, because alarmists haven’t proved CO2 is causing all the alleged warming nor have they proved it’s somehow “rapid.” Don’t have to prove a negative

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    And… he’s gone.

  8. Jeffery says:

    alarmists haven’t proved CO2 is causing all the alleged warming nor have they proved it’s somehow “rapid.”

    That’s been done time and again, j. Just because you refuse to read/listen and remember is not our fault.

    “alleged” warming… LOL. We do recall that you actually deny that it’s even warming. TEACH thinks you are wrong.

    It’s warming 10 times more rapidly now than when Earth came out of the last glacial period.

  9. Jl says:

    So in other words you can’t show us why it’s rapid. Sorry, but you can’t use paleo records and compare them with thermometer records. That’s why there’s nothing to compare the “rapid” to to say it’s rapid. You have no idea how fast it warmed for a designated 150 yr time frame when coming out of the last glacial period, especially when we’re talking about tenths of degrees. Paleo vs thermometers would be like a stop watch vs the second hand of a clock. For example, the first day the stop watch is invented 3 ppl run a 10.0, a 9.9, and a 10.1 hundred yard dash. Jeffery and the media would say “the 9.9 is the fastest ever run for a hundred yard dash!”. But is it? It’s the fastest run using that measuring device, but that by no means proves it was the fastest 100 yard dash. Those timing races before that using the second hand on a watch, could have no doubt witnessed other 9.9 times but they couldn’t tell that for sure because the instrument wasn’t as precise-the actual 9.9 could have looked like a 10.0 on a simple watch. Same with paleo vs thermometers.

  10. Jeffery says:

    If the facts were on your side, we suspect you would argue the facts. Instead you make semantic arguments. You talk about stop watches and clocks. You obsess on whether “rapid” is the proper adjective to describe the rapid increase in the average surface temperature. Sorry, the “alleged” increase, LOL.

    It seems to be your contention that the average global surface temperature has rapidly shot up 1 degree C and just as rapidly decreased many times over the past 10,000 years or so. A one degree C change during the Holocene would be a large change indeed – doesn’t it seem likely a paleo proxy would have picked it up – unless every time it occurred inside the resolution limits of the method. Every time?

    Do you know what the time resolution is for the various paleo records?

  11. Jl says:

    Again, if true, the “fast rate” is true only during the time period using that specific measuring device, in this case thermometers, for about 150 yrs. It doesn’t mean it’s the fastest rate, because one doesn’t know prior rates to the same degree of accuracy. One would have to know the rate of temperature rise for specific 150 yr periods 11,000 yrs ago. But we don’t. If you’re using a small time frame to proclaim the rate is fast now, then one would have to use the same time frame all through the Holocene

Bad Behavior has blocked 5328 access attempts in the last 7 days.