Correcting the South Dakota legislature's remarkable ignorance of science

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 4:29 PM GMT on March 29, 2010

Share this Blog
8
+

Climate change science has come under ferocious attack in recent months. But while it is good to objectively question the science of climate change, much of what is being said in these attacks greatly distorts or makes false statements about what the science says, much to the confusion of the public and policy makers. A resolution passed last month by the South Dakota House is an iconic example of the ignorant falsehoods and distortions common in so many of these recent attacks. By a 36-30 vote, the South Dakota legislature last month passed House Concurrent Resolution 1009, "Calling for balanced teaching of global warming in the public schools of South Dakota." Thirty-four Republicans and two Democrats voted for the resolution, which, remarkably, includes a reference to astrology as being central to the behavior of the weather. Here are the resolutions, put in italics, followed by my comments:

The South Dakota Legislature urges that instruction in the public schools relating to global warming include the following:

(1) That global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact;


This language is identical to what creationists used in their attempts to undermine the teaching of evolution, and is a standard trick used to attack the validity of any established scientific body of evidence. Here's how science works: Scientists collect data about the natural world. Using the aid of such tools as mathematics, scientists then construct theories to explain the observations. These theories must successfully pass review by several experts on the subject before they can be published in a scientific journal. Such "peer reviewed" science is a necessary but not sufficient condition for general acceptance of a theory; alternative theories compete, and the old theory must withstand the test of new theories. The old theory must also be validated by follow-up research by other scientists, who can duplicate the original findings. Gravity is one such theory that is well-supported by the available observations, and has withstood challenges over time. The theory of human-caused climate change is not as mature as the theory of gravity, but it is another theory that is well-supported by the available observations. While a number of alternative theories offering alternative explanations for the recent warming of the planet have been advanced, none of these have come remotely close to gaining widespread acceptance among the scientists publishing peer-reviewed papers on the subject. This is what teachers should be emphasizing to their students, not that "global warming is a scientific theory rather than a proven fact."

(2) That there are a variety of climatological, meteorological, astrological, thermological, cosmological, and ecological dynamics that can effect world weather phenomena and that the significance and interrelativity of these factors is largely speculative;

This is a wildly incorrect statement. "Astrological" refers to the superstitious belief that the movements of the stars and planets can affect the weather. We don't use horoscopes to forecast the weather! "Thermology" is the analysis of detailed infrared images of the human body, and has no relevance to weather. Finally, the laws governing the behavior of the atmosphere are not "largely speculative." Our understanding of these laws has enabled scientists to make computer forecast models that successfully tell us many days in advance what the weather is likely to be. Similar models have been built to study the climate, and these models have been very successful at simulating many aspects of the climate, such as the amount of cooling major volcanic eruptions cause. I would characterize these models as "limited," but they are getting better rapidly, and are not "largely speculative." A few English errors: "interrelativity" isn't a word, and the word "affect" instead of "effect" should have been used in the sentence.

(3) That the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints which have complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global warming phenomena;

It's highly ironic that these politicians are complaining about political viewpoints complicating the issue, yet here they are asserting their own political views, laden with awful science, to further complicate things. I agree that the political debate on global warming has complicated its scientific investigation, since climate scientists must now spend time away from their research to defend their work against absurd attacks like this one. Allegations that the debate has "prejudiced" scientific investigation have not been proven, and unproven allegations have no place in an official resolution by lawmakers.

Now, here is the evidence the South Dakota Legislature uses to support their resolutions:

WHEREAS, the earth has been cooling for the last eight years despite small increases in anthropogenic carbon dioxide;

The global temperature trend between 2002 - 2009 was -0.04°C, using the NASA GISS global temperature data set. This trend is not considered mathematically (statistically) significant, meaning that the trend is so close to zero that you can't say the Earth has been cooling. Note that if one picks almost any other period of averaging over the past 40 years, a positive (warming) trend results. For example, the Earth warmed 0.14°C between 2008 and 2009 (though this is also not mathematically significant, since we're only looking at two data points). One needs a lot more data points to get a mathematically significant result, and when one is talking about the climate, it is best to look at 30+ years. The Earth has warmed by about 0.16°C per decade over the past 30 years--a mathematically significant warming trend.

WHEREAS, there is no evidence of atmospheric warming in the troposphere where the majority of warming would be taking place;

Over the 31 years that we have satellite measurements, the lower troposphere has warmed by between 0.13° - 0.15°C per decade. Thus, this statement by the South Dakota legislature is undeniably false. In fact, two of the past four months have seen the warmest temperatures ever measured in the lower atmosphere, according to the University of Alabama, Huntsville. As I've discussed before, the argument made here was in vogue among climate change contrarians prior to 2004, and was the primary method of attack on the validity of global warming theory. However, a series of papers published in 2004 and 2005 showed that global warming theory was correct, and the satellite measurements showing a lack of tropospheric warming were wrong. To continue using a skeptic argument that was discredited five years ago and is no longer used by modern-day contrarians shows a remarkable lack of political savvy on the part of the South Dakota Legislature. They should have taken a lesson from the Utah State Legislature and used the contents of the hacked emails from the University of East Anglia--that is the modern preferred way to attack climate change science. As I've pointed out before, though, these attacks are also bogus.

WHEREAS, historical climatological data shows without question the earth has gone through trends where the climate was much warmer than in our present age. The Climatic Optimum and Little Climatic Optimum are two examples. During the Little Climatic Optimum, Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed and raised dairy cattle. Today, ninety percent of Greenland is covered by massive ice sheets, in many places more than two miles thick;

The resolution says "without question" the Earth has gone through warmer climates, then gives one example as the "Little Climatic Optimum," which is the period from around 900 - 1200 A.D. Current climate science, as summarized in the 2007 IPCC report, rates the Little Climatic Optimum as being cooler than the present-day climate, so it is false to say the Little Climatic Optimum was "without question" warmer. Even if it was warmer, that doesn't prove that the modern warming cannot be human-caused (one can use the analogy that different diseases can produce the same symptoms, and a good doctor will perform a scientific examination to determine what is causing the symptoms.) The discussion of the Greenland Ice Sheet makes it sound as if it appeared in the past 1,000 years. That is not the case. The ice coverage of Greenland is similar today to what it was during the time of Erik the Red. Grammar errors: "Earth" should be capitalized. "Erik the Red settled Greenland where they farmed" is grammatically incorrect.

WHEREAS, the polar ice cap is subject to shifting warm water currents and the break-up of ice by high wind events. Many oceanographers believe this to be the major cause of melting polar ice, not atmospheric warming;

While natural wind patterns in the early 1990s are thought to be an important factor that contributed to the decline of the polar ice cap in recent years, I haven't seen any peer-reviewed scientific paper stating that this was the major cause of arctic sea ice loss. Natural wind patterns, warmer atmospheric temperatures, warmer ocean temperatures, and the warming influence of black soot on the ice are all important factors, and there is no consensus on which of these factors is the dominant cause of the melting.

WHEREAS, carbon dioxide is not a pollutant but rather a highly beneficial ingredient for all plant life on earth.

Webster's dictionary defines a pollutant as "man-made waste that contaminates an environment." Webster's defines "contaminate" as "to make inferior or impure." CO2 is man-made waste, and there is scientific evidence that added CO2 can make our atmosphere "inferior" to its present state. As just one example, when CO2 is dissolved in the oceans, the water grows more acidic. Corals and other creatures that build shells out of calcium carbonate cannot form their shells if the acidity passes a critical level--their shells will dissolve. Thus, for these organisms, CO2 is definitely a pollutant. Several shell-building planktonic organisms, such as coccolithophorids, pteropods, and foraminifera, form an important basis of the food chain in cold ocean waters, and the continued increase in CO2 emissions have many scientists very concerned about a collapse of the oceanic food chain in these regions in coming decades. Presumably, the South Dakota lawmakers are taking the very narrow view that a pollutant is something that harms human health when breathed. One other note: they should have said "essential" instead of "highly beneficial" when describing the relationship between CO2 and plant life.

Many scientists refer to carbon dioxide as "the gas of life";

As I discussed at the time, the reference to CO2 being the "gas of life" comes from a fossil-fuel industry-funded ad campaign from 2006, not from the scientific literature.

WHEREAS, more than 31,000 American scientists collectively signed a petition to President Obama stating: "There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, or methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the earth's atmosphere and disruption of the earth's climate.

This a reference to the notorious "Oregon Petition," a product of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine (OISM). According to the Institute's web site and the book Climate Cover-up, the Institute is a farm shed situated a couple of miles outside of Cave Junction, OR (population 17,000). The Institute lists seven faculty members, two of whom are dead, and has no ongoing research and no students. It publishes creationist-friendly home-school curricula books on surviving nuclear war. The petition they created in 1999 was sent to scientists and was accompanied by a 12-page "scientific" review of climate change science filled with scientific distortions and falsehoods, printed in exactly the same style used for the prestigious journal, "Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences." A letter from Dr. Frederick Seitz, who was prominently identified as a former National Academy of Sciences president, accompanied the petition and review (at the time, Seitz was working for the fossil fuel industry-funded George C. Marshall Institute, a pro-industry think tank he helped found.) No doubt, many recipients of the petition took this to be an official National Academy of Sciences communication, and signed the petition as a result. The National Academy of Sciences issued a statement in April 2008, clarifying that it had not issued the petition, and that its position on global warming was the opposite. The petition contains no contact information for the signers, making it impossible to verify. While the petition does carry the names of legitimate scientists who do disagree with the IPCC consensus on the reality and dangers of human-caused climate change, the fraudulent way the petition was presented and the impossibility of verifying the signatures make its relevance highly questionable. An excellent post at skepticalscience.com explores the Oregon Petition's claim of 31,000 signatures in greater detail. It turns out that anyone can sign the petition and claim they are a scientist; there is no verification. The requirements for being a scientist include anyone with a Bachelor's degree in any of the following fields:

* Atmosphere, Earth, and Environment fields: atmospheric science, climatology, meteorology, astronomy, astrophysics, earth science, geochemistry, geology, geophysics, geoscience, hydrology, environmental engineering, environmental science, forestry, oceanography
* Computers and Math: computer science, mathematics, statistics
* Physics and Aerospace: physics, nuclear engineering, mechanical engineering, aerospace engineering
* Chemistry: chemistry, chemical engineering
* Biochemistry, Biology, and Agriculture: biochemistry, biophysics, biology, ecology, entomology, zoology, animal science, agricultural science, agricultural engineering, plant science, food science
* Medicine: medical science, medicine
* General Engineering and General Science: engineering, electrical engineering, metallurgy, general science

The skepticalscience.com post argues, "if we remove all the engineers, medical professionals, computer scientists, and mathematicians, then the 31,478 "scientists" turn into 13,245 actual scientists, as opposed to scientists according to the OISM's expansive definition." This represents 0.1% of the estimated 10.6 million scientists in the U.S. Now, let's consider specialists in climate change. The American Geophysical Union (AGU) has over 55,000 members, of which over 7,200 claim that atmospheric sciences is their primary field. The OISM claims 152 atmospheric scientists. Compared to the atmospheric scientist membership in the AGU, the OISM signatories are only 2.1%, and this estimate is high given the fact that the AGU does not claim all atmospheric scientists as members.

Counterbalancing the fraudulently obtained and inflated "consensus" of the Oregon Petition are the official climate change position statements of the following scientific organizations, which all agree with the consensus that "most of the global warming in recent decades can be attributed to human activities:"

American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Astronomical Society
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Physics
American Meteorological Society
American Physical Society
Australian Coral Reef Society
Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
British Antarctic Survey
Canadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
Canadian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
European Federation of Geologists
European Geosciences Union
European Physical Society
Federation of American Scientists
Federation of Australian Scientific and Technological Societies
Geological Society of America
Geological Society of Australia
International Union for Quaternary Research (INQUA)
International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics
National Center for Atmospheric Research
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Royal Meteorological Society
Royal Society of the UK

The Academies of Science from 19 different countries all endorse the consensus. Eleven countries have signed a joint statement endorsing the consensus position:
Academia Brasiliera de Ciencias (Brazil)
Royal Society of Canada
Chinese Academy of Sciences
Academie des Sciences (France)
Deutsche Akademie der Naturforscher Leopoldina (Germany)
Indian National Science Academy
Accademia dei Lincei (Italy)
Science Council of Japan
Russian Academy of Sciences
Royal Society (United Kingdom)
National Academy of Sciences (USA) (12 Mar 2009 news release)

A letter from 18 major scientific organisations to the U.S. Congress in October 2009 states:
"Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science."

The consensus is also endorsed by a Joint statement by the Network of African Science Academies (NASAC), the Royal Society of New Zealand, and the Polish Academy of Sciences.

One can read much more on the topic at the excellent skepticalscience.com blog where I took this information from.

Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide will produce many beneficial effects on the natural plant and animal environments of the earth."

This is true, but of course neglects to mention the many harmful effects warmer temperatures will bring.

On to the Senate
The South Dakota Senate passed by a vote of 18-17 an amended version of the resolution which eliminated most of the scientific falsehoods and distortions and corrected most of the English errors (except for the use of the non-word "interrelativity.") However, the resolution still asserts that the global warming debate has prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena. The amended version now returns to the House for approval.

Commentary
The fundamental scientific ignorance displayed by the South Dakota legislature clearly makes them unqualified to recommend how science should be taught in schools. While the proposed resolution by the South Dakota legislature does not have the force of law, the debate on climate change is too important to be based on falsehoods and distortions made up by politicians or by the "Manufactured Doubt Industry." Politicians should stay out of micro-managing education, and leave the teaching to the teachers.

For further reading
Our Climate Change blogger, Dr. Ricky Rood, has an excellent post discussing politics and global warming, titled, If Lady Chatterley's Lover, then...

The New York Times has an interesting article, Darwin Foes Add Warming to Targets, that discusses how several states have introduced or approved measures mandating that opposing views on human-caused climate change and evolution should be taught in the classroom.

Jeff Masters

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

Sign In or Register Sign In or Register

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 142 - 92

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Quoting RitaEvac:


Oh I hear you, not all are bums, but its scary what is out there.

Yes, it is scary what all is out there. But at the same time, you only hear about teachers because their crimes tend to be higher profile. I'm willing to bet that the incidence of drugs on a per-capita basis of teachers is less than the incidence of other jobs around the same pay scale.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5908
Yep. crazy season. Unfounded accusations, over-the-top reactions, senseless provocations, and general insanity or chaos are all welcome here now!

I blame it all on Al Gore....

;)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
Wait a second Floodman your from TX too, you know they dont do that! they don't do drug tests on these people!


You're right; the only time they drug test in Texas is when they're injured on the job...Texas is about the last holdout though, I'd have to imagine.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:


Santa Fe ISD

Any student participating in UIL-sanctioned events in the state of TX is subject to random drug testing. Most *major* school districts also subject all employees of the district to random drug testing. A few outliers are out there (like Santa Fe ISD), but they are the exception, not the rule.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5908
Quoting jeffs713:

SOME teachers aren't teaching for the right reasons. SOME teachers are. I am taking classes to become a teacher, and its not for the summers off (which is optional... someone has to teach summer school), nor is it for the paycheck (which is MUCH smaller than it should be). I chose teaching because it is what I want to do. I want to make an impact on a child's life. I want a child to look back and remember me as a person, and also for what I taught them. I want to give children who aren't in the greatest situation a better shot at life. I want to help our next generation get the best education possible.

I also know quite a few other people that are teachers, or are training to become teachers that are of much the same belief.

Before you paint teachers as "bums", or just trying to take advantage of some inherent facets of teaching, please take into account that not everyone is the same, and some people actually do care.


Oh I hear you, not all are bums, but its scary what is out there.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Wait a second Floodman your from TX too, you know they dont do that! they don't do drug tests on these people!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Skyepony:
I heard the Melbourne, FL NWS went out to Eau Gallie Estates, a trailer park not far west of me that is across the road from Cypress Bend. They supposedly confirmed a tornado by damage. I roof missing, tree down. Waiting to see the storm survey.

Like the qualifications for scientist in the entry.. all you none believers can refer to me as Skyepony the Scientist from now on..:P


MLB Survey

DETERMINATION: WEAK EF0 TORNADO
MAXIMUM ESTIMATED WINDS: 60 MPH
PATH LENGTH: 2.4 MILES
PATH WIDTH: 150-200 YARDS
TIME OF OCCURRENCE: 600 PM TO 604 PM...MAR 28 2010
Member Since: September 23, 2005 Posts: 16 Comments: 11554
Quoting RitaEvac:
BTW, teachers arent teaching because they like doing it and working with kids, their doing it for a paycheck and to get the summers and long holidays off. Bums have penetrated the school system. And why there aren't drug tests for those idiots is beyond me cuz they do that too.

SOME teachers aren't teaching for the right reasons. SOME teachers are. I am taking classes to become a teacher, and its not for the summers off (which is optional... someone has to teach summer school), nor is it for the paycheck (which is MUCH smaller than it should be). I chose teaching because it is what I want to do. I want to make an impact on a child's life. I want a child to look back and remember me as a person, and also for what I taught them. I want to give children who aren't in the greatest situation a better shot at life. I want to help our next generation get the best education possible.

I also know quite a few other people that are teachers, or are training to become teachers that are of much the same belief.

Before you paint teachers as "bums", or just trying to take advantage of some inherent facets of teaching, please take into account that not everyone is the same, and some people actually do care.
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5908
Quoting Floodman:


Name me a school district without random drug testing?


Santa Fe ISD
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
BTW, teachers arent teaching because they like doing it and working with kids, their doing it for a paycheck and to get the summers and long holidays off. Bums have penetrated the school system. And why there aren't drug tests for those idiots is beyond me cuz they do that too.


Name me a school district without random drug testing?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StormChaser81:


They cant afford drug test anymore and it will get worse.


But they will drug test the kids for sports
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
BTW, teachers arent teaching because they like doing it and working with kids, their doing it for a paycheck and to get the summers and long holidays off. Bums have penetrated the school system. And why there aren't drug tests for those idiots is beyond me cuz they do that too.


They cant afford drug test anymore and it will get worse.
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2315
Quoting RitaEvac:
Ahhh, the season is upon us.

Yep. crazy season. Unfounded accusations, over-the-top reactions, senseless provocations, and general insanity or chaos are all welcome here now!
Member Since: August 3, 2008 Posts: 16 Comments: 5908
Quoting Patrap:


I remember your post awhile back that you'd be there..an teaching that class.

Education is the Key,and Im pushing/advocating for Emg Prep,Hurricane and Other education in Grammar thru 12th grade Nationwide.


I'd like to read more, Pat. Doesn't matter where you call home... some kind of public ed on potential disasters (the ones you are most likely to see in your locale) should be just as well taught as Fire Safety week in October...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
BTW, teachers arent teaching because they like doing it and working with kids, their doing it for a paycheck and to get the summers and long holidays off. Bums have penetrated the school system. And why there aren't drug tests for those idiots is beyond me cuz they do that too.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Have your Hurricane Plans in Place!

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Minnemike:
oops.. two Tampa's...
-Spin of course :)


It's OK, Mike, I've stayed the course on hurricane public education since the 2004 season! :-D
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
124. Skyepony (Mod)
I heard the Melbourne, FL NWS went out to Eau Gallie Estates, a trailer park not far west of me that is across the road from Cypress Bend. They supposedly confirmed a tornado by damage. I roof missing, tree down. Waiting to see the storm survey.

Like the qualifications for scientist in the entry.. all you none believers can refer to me as Skyepony the Scientist from now on..:P
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:


I remember your post awhile back that you'd be there..an teaching that class.

Education is the Key,and Im pushing/advocating for Emg Prep,Hurricane and Other education in Grammar thru 12th grade Nationwide.


Problem is teachers from K thru 12th grade are pinheads as well, I know teachers I grew up with and they play on facebook while supposed to be teaching. America has gone from the best to hasbeen and then some.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaTom:


Sweet. Gonna be out there Thursday to teach my 3:30 class... hoping to see you there..


I remember your post awhile back that you'd be there..an teaching that class.

Education is the Key,and Im pushing/advocating for Emg Prep,Hurricane and Other education in Grammar thru 12th grade Nationwide.
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 433 Comments: 132137
In other words, Mother Nature is in control not what we do or say, and she's gonna make damn sure we get the message
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
I wish it were hurricane season, then the GW debate would end and we could focus on some storms
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
oops.. two Tampa's...
-Spin of course :)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Im the one who ganked his picture

ganked? que es ganked?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Cane season is going to give us a slap across the face for all this blog nonsense. Apparently no one has learned from anything, so the canes will just finish off NOLA and Galveston, and all others between. Then we debate about some real issues
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RitaEvac:
Ahhh, the season is upon us.
what season is that make trouble season
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:



Like always..Mondays arrival day..Light schedule.

But tonight should be fun.



Sweet. Gonna be out there Thursday to teach my 3:30 class... hoping to see you there..
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaTom:


Pat - Hmmm... good gumbo outside of Louisiana? Gonna have to try some when I get there.

How's attendance? It was really down last year in Austin... I hope it has picked up a little bit, but I'm not holding out hope.




Like always..Mondays arrival day..Light schedule.

But tonight should be fun.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 433 Comments: 132137
Ahhh, the season is upon us.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Tampa, you have stayed that course well.. i'd never anticipate any deviation from you!!
-i made that last post to Levi, though stated generally for all to consider. to even call his posts Right-wing would be, i believe, a misrepresentation of them; hence my advice. but he did make an inferred statement that others naturally responded with contention over. some had defended Gore when he really wasn't 'attacked' and myself simply attempting to dismiss him from the conversation once and for all. let's just all be aware that our comments are read and deciphered absent of our own control... no need to get too bent out of shape over it. (arguments or debates #105? -big difference)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Patrap:
Giggle,snort,ack....slurrrrrp,Gumbo is..

Ummm,not too bad.


Pat - Hmmm... good gumbo outside of Louisiana? Gonna have to try some when I get there.

How's attendance? It was really down last year in Austin... I hope it has picked up a little bit, but I'm not holding out hope.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:


Irrelevant....irrelevant....still acting like I am personally attacking the guy. You can't even stay on subject. But I guess we can cut you some slack Pat....after all you're new at this. You didn't become so opinionated until this year. Neutral suited you better my friend.


Who's we?

LOL

One thing I'll never be,is Neutral around here..

I dont roll like dat atall..never did.

You'll mellow after a few decades too.


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 433 Comments: 132137
I wonder where Grothar is. He is very knowledgeable in the area of global warming, and I'm sure he'd provide a nice supplement to this discussion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
NO CRYING PLEASE!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Back last fall when the Arctic ice extent briefly dropped into record low (for the dates) territory, this blog announced that this portended future instances. Actually, it was noise and the 2009 graph inconveniently disappeared into the spaghetti of the rest of the decade.

Now, however, 2010 seems to be making a fairly bold statement in the opposite direction. The IARC-JAXA data show that for the first time in the period that they cover (back to 2003), ice extent grew in March (assuming no wild change in the last 3 days). It's a more significant fact than the brief wobble last fall.

Can we expect a comment in this blog regarding such a surprising increase?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting TampaSpin:
He deserved everything he got after the way he was attacking fellow bloggers in my opinion.


Tampa, NOTHING of this sort should be going on. This is a blog about WEATHER. Arguments have NO place here.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
And guys, respect SSIGA Guy, please. He has loads more life experience than many of us, and easily takes precedence over that same lot. Just my opinion.

And also:
Admin Notice: When using Dr. Masters' blog, please refrain from posting material not relevant to the discussion of tropical weather, or the topic of the blog entry itself. Please do not engage in personal attacks or bickering. Material not conforming to these standards should be flagged with the button and ignored.

I'm sorry, but wouldn't what happened to JFLORIDA be classified as a "personal attack" along with the cockroach comments?
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting oldgrrl:


Wow, talk about painting a group of people with one brush! As an unemployed teacher, I cared more about my students than anyone on this blog or any can know.

Science teaching as well as most of the subjects taught are designed to teach critical thinking skills. Use your critical thinking skills to separate what belongs in science class and what belongs in Religion class in the global warming debate. I don't believe the Bible comments on climate change except for G_d's curse of famine in Egypt.


I agree, and I'm sorry. I did not mean to offend you. I should say that my teachers typically care more about themselves than the students.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Yeah Tampa I agree about blog bullies. There were some very very nasty bullies against JFLORIDA last month, swiping his avatar, and being very cruel, making fun of him.

I really people think people who behave like that should be banned. Permanently. Don't you?


He deserved it, by being nasty to lots of bloggers. He made some really rude comments about people of the blog being cock roaches.
Member Since: August 11, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 2315
Quoting Minnemike:
advice to those troubled by people's perceptions of them... text makes inferences! to avoid coming across in any unintended way, it's best to state one's intentions with clarity. just a word of advice...


Better yet, i'm gonna post what i want and not post or qoute a person. Just watch how many attacks one would still get. One cannot post something as a Right wing person without attacks to follow. If we all aggred with Dr. Masters Ideals then this blog would be dead. I doubt Dr. Masters takes difference of opinions to personal as some on here do. Thank you Dr. Masters!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting StSimonsIslandGAGuy:
Yeah Tampa I agree about blog bullies. There were some very very nasty bullies against JFLORIDA last month, swiping his avatar, and being very cruel, making fun of him.

I really people think people who behave like that should be banned. Permanently. Don't you?


Ya i believe he was attacking everyone that posted something that he did not like and was asking for proof of every post. GEESH!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Thanks, Jeff.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
advice to those troubled by people's perceptions of them... text makes inferences! to avoid coming across in any unintended way, it's best to state one's intentions with clarity. just a word of advice...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Gotta go, later all.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26746
Quoting Patrap:


I'd refrain from going where you've never been Levi.

Like say, serving America..as Al did with a Honorable Tour,he was a Writer in Nam.

But I assume your registered with the Selective Service,so feel free to enlist anyday.

Be all you can be.

Or didnt you read the wiki..LOL


Irrelevant....irrelevant....still acting like I am personally attacking the guy. You can't even stay on subject. But I guess we can cut you some slack Pat....after all you're new at this. You didn't become so opinionated until this year. Neutral suited you better my friend.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 635 Comments: 26746
92. JeffMasters (Admin)
Quoting oldgrrl:
Just a question: Does this resolution have the force of law dictating that teachers must teach what the lawmakers have decided?

Over forty years ago I was told by a priest that evolution was only a theory. In the scientific sense, that, too, is correct. The preponderance of evidence supports evolution rather than Genesis. (I realize faith has no need of evidence, but faith as science should not be taught in the science class, but in philosophy or religion class.


It does not have the force of law, it is just a recommendation. I've clarified this in the final blog paragraph.

Jeff Masters

Viewing: 142 - 92

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17Blog Index

Top of Page

About

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Mostly Cloudy
72 °F
Mostly Cloudy

JeffMasters's Recent Photos

Carrot Nose in Danger
Deep Snow in Brookline, MA
Sunset at Fort DeSoto
New Years Day Sunset in Death Valley