City school officials in Worthington feel the heat from global warming

Columbus Underground Messageboard » General Columbus Discussion

City school officials in Worthington feel the heat from global warming

[70 posts] [24 contributors]

Topic Rating:

(Total Ratings: )
Rate this topic:

Started 2 years ago by TomOver
Latest reply from HeySquare

Tags:

« Previous 123 4 Next »

Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM

LBOWACC wrote >>

Analogue Kid wrote >>
@Kirk & LBOWACC:
The reason we teach climate change (as it is properly called) in schools is because it is science. There have been thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals either providing evidence supporting climate change or not taking a position. Remember that anybody can write a book, and it can be completely false. There has not been one journal article in the past 30 years which refutes the premise of climate change. The only thing that remains up for debate is how quickly things are changing. This isn't something like abortion where there are honestly two sides. You either believe the science or you believe Exxon.
Here is a graph of CO2 going back hundreds of thousands of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Also, religion is generally considered beyond the scope of scientific scrutiny and thus isn't taught.

Exxon does not employe scientists? Heck most execs of oil companies are either engineers or geologists. Quite a few scientists are employed by exxon, id say in the thousands.
Anyway, everyone knows it is getting warmer, the debate is on if man is causing this. Did you not read "man made" in my post?
I will believe a PHD at OSU before an internet guy trying to berate me into believing it because Pelosi has told him too.

Exxon does indeed employ scientists. But being a scientist at an oil company doesn't make them necessarily qualified to explain atmospheric phenomenon. I was mostly referring to the fact that Exxon as a company denies mans effect on climate.

It has already been established by the IPCC that human activities are causing recent climate shifts. http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Also, I don't much care for Pelosi, especially when 500,000,000 Americans are affected by her policies (her words, not mine). Politicians are politicians. I give kudos to Al Gore for not running for office because that would essentially negate all his work in the eyes of many.

Posted 2 years ago #
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM

Kirk wrote >>
I'm a student at the School of Environment and Natural Resources at OSU and they don't even teach it as settled science there. @alexs I am saying its like a religion in the sense that people can conveniently ignore certain facts like the Medieval warming period, the fact that we haven't warmed in the last decade and a half, or that there has been a lot of development around these weather monitoring stations in the last 50 years that could skew the data.
@analogue kid I don't know if you have access to the OSU journals database or not but it took me all of 30 seconds to find several peer reviewed scientific journals questioning or outright refuting anthropogenic climate change. I found one of these studies in the American Meteorological Society Journal. A few hundred years ago settled science was that life was formed through spontaneous generation. Anthropogenic climate change is the "new" spontaneous generation. Just because its popular and their are a lot of research dollars there doesn't mean its correct.

I graduated from said school myself, and I am well aware of skeptics within the department. Instead of the agronomy prof, talk to Mohan Wali or Rattan Lal and throw every skeptical question you can at them. They are true experts in the field and have lots of experience and data in support of man made climate change.

Please send me links to these refuting studies! I would love to read them.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Analogue Kid wrote >>

It has already been established by the IPCC that human activities are causing recent climate shifts. http://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf

Ummmm.....

http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2010/0311/Independent-review-of-IPCC-and-its-global-warming-reports-an-answer-to-critics

And while some still maintain that the underlying conclusions of the IPCC are still valid, not everyone does.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/ipcc_rainforest_rubbish_coup_de_grace/

The UN body came under attack earlier this year for suggesting that 40 per cent of the Amazonian rainforests - dubbed the "lungs of the planet" by some for their ability to turn CO2 into oxygen, and also seen as vital on biodiversity grounds - might disappear imminently. This disaster would be triggered, according to the IPCC's assessment, by a relatively slight drop in rainfall of the sort to be expected in a warming world.

Unfortunately it now appears that just such conditions have already occurred, and in fact the Amazonian jungles were unaffected.

This includes some members of the IPCC:

Even the IPCC itself now regrets listening to WWF.

"The way that the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong," according to IPCC member Jose Marengo, commenting on the new research.

Which might beg the question of why his colleagues referenced the bogus WWF polemic in their 2007 report on what the world can expect: and why they still publish it today on the web as part of their considered opinion.

Samanta, Ganguly and their colleagues also consider that their results debunk another controversial paper published in 2007, which said that the 2005 drought was actually good for the rainforests, causing them to "green up" due to more sunlight from cloudless skies.

These results are "not reproducible", according to the new analysis, which indicates that in fact nothing much changed down on the Amazon during the 2005 dry spell.

Posted 2 years ago #
pez

Login to Send PM

Analogue Kid wrote >>

... I give kudos to Al Gore for not running for office because that would essentially negate all his work in the eyes of many.

So the fact that he has already and will continue to make a personal fortune from climate change doesn't negate his work in your mind? I fail to see the difference between him and an Exxon scientist when they are all motivated by the same thing, $$$.

Posted 2 years ago #
LBOWACC

Login to Send PM

Analogue Kid wrote >>

LBOWACC wrote >>

Analogue Kid wrote >>
@Kirk & LBOWACC:
The reason we teach climate change (as it is properly called) in schools is because it is science. There have been thousands of studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals either providing evidence supporting climate change or not taking a position. Remember that anybody can write a book, and it can be completely false. There has not been one journal article in the past 30 years which refutes the premise of climate change. The only thing that remains up for debate is how quickly things are changing. This isn't something like abortion where there are honestly two sides. You either believe the science or you believe Exxon.
Here is a graph of CO2 going back hundreds of thousands of years: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr.png
Also, religion is generally considered beyond the scope of scientific scrutiny and thus isn't taught.

Exxon does not employe scientists? Heck most execs of oil companies are either engineers or geologists. Quite a few scientists are employed by exxon, id say in the thousands.
Anyway, everyone knows it is getting warmer, the debate is on if man is causing this. Did you not read "man made" in my post?
I will believe a PHD at OSU before an internet guy trying to berate me into believing it because Pelosi has told him too.

Exxon does indeed employ scientists. But being a scientist at an oil company doesn't make them necessarily qualified to explain atmospheric phenomenon.

I would think a guy like this would know a lot about the environment.

Candidates are sought to fill a key position in the Corporate Strategic Research Laboratory of ExxonMobil Research and Engineering in the area of Environmental Science and Modeling. A strong background in environmental science, systems modeling, and computational science/engineering is essential. In addition, a background in life cycle assessment (LCA) tools/methodologies is preferred. The successful candidate will help develop and advance our internal capabilities in the areas of environmental impact modeling. They will develop metrics to characterize the environmental performance of products and processes via collaboration with the external community. They will also support internal and external research efforts to develop improved LCA methods that integrate advanced models/concepts such as multi-objective optimization, optimization under uncertainty, decision analysis, and cost-benefit analysis. Additionally, they will contribute to the design and execution of life cycle inventories and impact assessments for a range of products and processes across ExxonMobilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s chemical and petroleum business areas.

The successful candidate will be expected to demonstrate strong scientific leadership within both the corporation and the external scientific community. Strong communication skills are essential, as collaboration with other science areas is critical for success. A PhD in engineering (chemical, environmental, mechanical), environmental science, physical chemistry, physics, or similar field is required. Candidates with all levels of experience will be considered.

ExxonMobilÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Corporate Strategic Research (CSR) laboratory is a dynamic and exciting place to work. CSR is located in scenic western New Jersey, about an hour west of New York City and 45 minutes northwest of Princeton. Within CSR, active research programs exist in all areas of the companyÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s business and which cut across the traditional fields of chemical engineering, materials science, chemistry, physics, geoscience, and mechanical engineering. Interdisciplinary research is the norm, and close ties are maintained with the academic and national laboratory communities through publication and presentation of results. Collaborations with the external scientific community are encouraged.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Kirk wrote >>
I'm a student at the School of Environment and Natural Resources at OSU and they don't even teach it as settled science there. @alexs I am saying its like a religion in the sense that people can conveniently ignore certain facts like the Medieval warming period, the fact that we haven't warmed in the last decade and a half, or that there has been a lot of development around these weather monitoring stations in the last 50 years that could skew the data.
@analogue kid I don't know if you have access to the OSU journals database or not but it took me all of 30 seconds to find several peer reviewed scientific journals questioning or outright refuting anthropogenic climate change. I found one of these studies in the American Meteorological Society Journal. A few hundred years ago settled science was that life was formed through spontaneous generation. Anthropogenic climate change is the "new" spontaneous generation. Just because its popular and their are a lot of research dollars there doesn't mean its correct.

I don't really think your metaphor makes the point you think it does. The concept of abiogenesis was historically what people believed to have always occurred, until it was supplanted by mounting evidence supporting the concept of biogenesis. The abiogenesis-like concept in this debate would be the human assumption that nothing they do could cause climate change which might have negative impacts on their survival outcomes. That theory has never stood up on close scrutiny. For example, if I put you in an hermetically sealed steel box, even while giving you let's say enough basic food nutrition for a month, I know you're going to die because of climate change in the box. You're going to claim you ran out of air, but what science says happened is you consumed all the o2 and you lack the capability to replace it or evolve fast enough to replace your personal o2 consumption ability with an equivalent capability to consume co2 for the same purpose. In fact, with some rough calculations on your mass and the size of the container I can probably approximate your time of death. This is no different than the climate change argument except there are more variables.

The fact that you can find skeptics of any scientifically recognized concept isn't relevant to the discussion. I know people who still believe the lunar landing was staged even though they've seen the space shuttle take off.

To wit, acid rain was discovered almost 130 years before any real legislation was passed about it. A lot of scholarly research was done in the 60s and 70s, and when I was in middle school my cousin who worked as a scientist at bell labs in the 80s taught me enough about it so that I did a science project on its distributed effects by collecting ph samples from lakes around the us and canada one summer. Needless to say, I ended up dealing with science teachers (not my own) and administrators who'd never heard of the concept and couldn't believe some kid knew enough to put a project together about it. The bigger problem was that many of the lakes measured were already dead, it didn't matter that the stubborn finally came around, it was too late for a lot of lakes affected by acid rain fallout.

This whole "climate change scientific cabal" argument makes sense for a Dan Brown novel, but if you're putting your faith that somehow the vast majority of climate scientists are wrong on the merits, you're making a bet that generally hasn't paid off historically.

Posted 2 years ago #
Snarf
Dystopia
Login to Send PM

I'm right.

NO! I'm right!

-insert wall of text here-

see.

NO, I'M RIGHT!

quoted wall of text
-new wall of text here-

Repeat to infinite!

Posted 2 years ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

BTW, some of this discussion is why Rush listeners struggle to get this issue. I actually listen to Rush at least a little bit every day, and he does something very clever (in a very evil sort of way, knowing how a large portion of his audience "listens"). He will constantly refer to the "myth of global warming"...and then as an afterthought (and yet clearly intentional, as he does it all the time) go back a few seconds later and "correct himself" by saying "myth of man made global warming". He's also doing this while talking about something like the amount of snow on the ground at the same time, so anyone who isn't listening with an ear to what he's doing will hear what he wants them to...global warming=myth because of snow on the ground.

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

Snarf wrote >>
I'm right.
NO! I'm right!
-insert wall of text here-
see.
NO, I'M RIGHT!
quoted wall of text
-new wall of text here-
Repeat to infinite!

exactly.

I stand by my first post in this thread, which was simply "lol"

Posted 2 years ago #
Rockmastermike
CORNspiracy HQ
Login to Send PM

Core_Models wrote >> He's also doing this while talking about something like the amount of snow on the ground at the same time, so anyone who isn't listening with an ear to what he's doing will hear what he wants them to...global warming=myth because of snow on the ground.

Which I find awesomely hilarious, in part because it completely ignores the reason snow falls in the first place.

(protip: snow doesn't fall simply because it is "cold" outside.)

Posted 2 years ago #
Core_Models
Columbus
Login to Send PM

He apparently knows this too, because he then "preps" his listeners to hear that information by saying it himself in a sarcastic voice.

"of course, the leftie science kooks will tell you its snowing because of global warming"...with voice added for effect.

Posted 2 years ago #
myliftkk
Columbus, OH
Login to Send PM

Core_Models wrote >>
BTW, some of this discussion is why Rush listeners struggle to get this issue. I actually listen to Rush at least a little bit every day, and he does something very clever (in a very evil sort of way, knowing how a large portion of his audience "listens"). He will constantly refer to the "myth of global warming"...and then as an afterthought (and yet clearly intentional, as he does it all the time) go back a few seconds later and "correct himself" by saying "myth of man made global warming". He's also doing this while talking about something like the amount of snow on the ground at the same time, so anyone who isn't listening with an ear to what he's doing will hear what he wants them to...global warming=myth because of snow on the ground.

I think Rush's listeners just find it easier to believe the imaginary threat that someone might come take their twinkies away than the abstract threat that they might run out of o2 one day.

They can taste the twinkies, but not the o2. If o2 tasted like choclate sauce, my guess is no one would be debating climate change.

Posted 2 years ago #
kcrissinger
Brookshire
Login to Send PM

Mother Nature always gets the last laugh.....the one thing humans cannot yet control.

Posted 2 years ago #
byJody
Rural NW Columbus
Login to Send PM

I went to Worthington High School and I remember my biology teacher starting the evolution lesson with some weird disclaimer..something about evolution being only a theory and students could be excused from the lesson if it offended their religious beliefs. It was the first I became aware of the blurring of the lines between church and state and that was early 80's. I guess it's more of the same.

So glad analogkid mentioned 'Climate Change' as the proper term. I've heard of 'local cooling' groups forming as an opposition to 'global warming' groups. Yes, both phenomenae are happening and can turn on a dime, we no longer get a gradual, linear change in weather patterns where the 4 seasons hold a typical weather pattern. Anyone remember our cool summer last year, the mega warm November, the February supersnow storm(s)? I think climate change is evident, the question still remains whether it is influenced by carbon emission or if it was inevitable anyway. Not sure that point really matters, the fact remains that the climate is changing, does 'why' really matter?

Some astrologers say humans as a collective have changed our original course of earthly destruction, so gaia is now releasing the stored up destructive energy in smaller emissions instead of the catastrophic energy explosion we had been manifesting for centuries. I guess she is just farting it out slowly instead of one big fatal violent explosion.

I am not a fan of 'clean coal' mostly because it doesn't seem healthy to pump waste gases deep into the layers of the earth. Seems like it might piss her off again.

Posted 2 years ago #
groundrules

Login to Send PM

Snarf wrote >>
I'm right.
NO! I'm right!
-insert wall of text here-
see.
NO, I'M RIGHT!
quoted wall of text
-new wall of text here-
Repeat to infinite!

you forgot "i guggled it and read it on the interwebs, which is what makes me more righter than you."

Posted 2 years ago #
Tenzo
Chicago Lakeshore
Login to Send PM

Why not teach global warning.
Just teach the facts

When I was in school they taught that the next ice age was coming within our lifetimes.

I'm a big proponent of teaching resoning skills rather than conclusions. Bring it all to the table and have the students do a research paper on their conclusions.

Saying "because Al Gore said so" is no more sane/insane than saying "Because Rush said so"

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

Tenzo wrote >>

Saying "because Al Gore said so" is no more sane/insane than saying "Because Rush said so"

But but but... one of those feels better.

Posted 2 years ago #
groundrules

Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
Saying "because Al Gore said so" is no more sane/insane than saying "Because Rush said so"

But but but... one of those feels better.

nobody deserves to win this argument with any version of "because __________ said so." But on the whole, I think the deniers are much more likely to rely on the windbags for their argument than are the believers, who have the advantage of the bulk of defensible science to refer to.

Posted 2 years ago #
Analogue Kid
5th by West-Northwest
Login to Send PM

rus wrote >>
Ummmm.....
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Global-Warming/2010/0311/Independent-review-of-IPCC-and-its-global-warming-reports-an-answer-to-critics
And while some still maintain that the underlying conclusions of the IPCC are still valid, not everyone does.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/03/12/ipcc_rainforest_rubbish_coup_de_grace/

The UN body came under attack earlier this year for suggesting that 40 per cent of the Amazonian rainforests - dubbed the "lungs of the planet" by some for their ability to turn CO2 into oxygen, and also seen as vital on biodiversity grounds - might disappear imminently. This disaster would be triggered, according to the IPCC's assessment, by a relatively slight drop in rainfall of the sort to be expected in a warming world.
Unfortunately it now appears that just such conditions have already occurred, and in fact the Amazonian jungles were unaffected.

This includes some members of the IPCC:

Even the IPCC itself now regrets listening to WWF.
"The way that the WWF report calculated this 40 per cent was totally wrong," according to IPCC member Jose Marengo, commenting on the new research.

So from the article you posted, it says this:

Through it all, most researchers agree that these basic conclusions contained in the IPCC reports remain solidly intact: Warming since the Industrial Revolution is "unequivocal"; most of the warming the climate has undergone during the past half century is "very likely" due to human influence; that warming's effects are appearing in virtually every region around the globe, and in many cases faster than models have projected

It's hilarious because its like a house is on fire, and people are denying its really happening because there is debate on whether or not the master bedroom will go alight.

Posted 2 years ago #
rus

Login to Send PM

groundrules wrote >>

rus wrote >>

Tenzo wrote >>
Saying "because Al Gore said so" is no more sane/insane than saying "Because Rush said so"

But but but... one of those feels better.

nobody deserves to win this argument with any version of "because __________ said so." But on the whole, I think the deniers are much more likely to rely on the windbags for their argument than are the believers, who have the advantage of the bulk of defensible science to refer to.

Some of the science doesn't seem too defensible.... and the argument seems a bit more complex that the two choices of "ZOMG!! WUR ALL GUNNA DIEZ!!!" and "NOPE. NOT HAPPENING. KTHANXBYE.".

Posted 2 years ago #