Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

originally posted by: smurfy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

"Close to a third of the teachers also reported conveying messages that are contradictory, emphasizing the scientific consensus on human causation and the idea that many scientists believe the changes have natural causes."

This is Prof. Plutzer doing what he does. He goes around Universities as a POLITICAL SCIENTIST, usually with the 'not good enough' approach.
He did the same with students on Creationism and Evolutionism. This the master brainwasher at work.
He's not even a scientist, and the consensus he talks about re "climate change" is not his science...if anything, he just agrees with it !

Looks like what he did would be within the framework of his profession then. It's also a good thing that I supplied supplementary information in the OP backing up the legitimacy of this scientific theory right?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regardless to whether climate change is man made or not, why do so many need people to believe that it is caused by man?

It's not a belief. Unlike a religious faith, there is actual data and evidence to refer to.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Yeah they have a stamp on them that says "REAL SCIENCE STUFF"

If you don't see the stamp then you know it's not a real scientific document

originally posted by: MarioOnTheFly

You go to scientific papers and read them and don't rely on media reports.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, just to be on the safe side...if it's in a Science paper...then it's absolutelly positively true, right ?

I never said that. I said you read the papers and data. The point of science is that it is supposed to be reproducible. So if you are skeptical of a paper's results, just try to repeat their steps to see what data you come up with. It's that easy.

a reply to: Bennyzilla

Oh damn you got the list of all the paid shill teachers and scientists???? Can I see it?!

Here you go:

www.heartland.org...

You can even by a poster to hang on your wall and cherish:



store.heartland.org...

a reply to: Bennyzilla

If you don't see the stamp then you know it's not a real scientific document

You know it's a real scientific document if it appears in a peer reviewed journal like Science, you know, like the study in the OP.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Show me a corruption trail for scientists promoting AGW. I can most DEFINITELY show you a corruption trail for scientists that deny it.

if by corruption trail you mean...a paycheck slip...then...I got some for AGW people too.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh really? Let's post our sources. I'd bet that the scientists I produce would be paid FAR more than the scientists you can produce.

Here's one:
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers

So I hope you have scientists getting pay checks in the millions from special interests.

a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

how can an awerage joe on the street...know who to trust ? and dont tell me "by doing his own research".

I dunno about you but I trust expert opinions over those of non-experts. Most grade school teachers, even the science teachers, are not actually scientists let alone climatologists. When it comes to politicians, that percentage drops to a number so low that it's effectively (if not) 0.

Sometimes the consensus in a given field of science turns out to be wrong but I can't think of even one example of politicians and school teachers having opinions that contradicted prevailing scientific thought where those non-expert opinions turned out to be correct. Can you?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regardless to whether climate change is man made or not, why do so many need people to believe that it is caused by man?

So they get on board with doing something to slow it down or stop it instead of wasting time debating if it is real or not.

You don't need a majority to "stop it" or "slow it down" or "make changes".

You don't need a consensus.

Just make the changes.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: Bennyzilla

If you don't see the stamp then you know it's not a real scientific document

You know it's a real scientific document if it appears in a peer reviewed journal like Science, you know, like the study in the OP.

Peer reviewed is a joke.

a reply to: DJW001

Nice I love that you actually found a list. Stars for that.

A lot of real scientists on it too, with science degrees and peer reviewed studies, all saying that climate change is being blown out of proportion.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regardless to whether climate change is man made or not, why do so many need people to believe that it is caused by man?

So they get on board with doing something to slow it down or stop it instead of wasting time debating if it is real or not.

You don't need a majority to "stop it" or "slow it down" or "make changes".

You don't need a consensus.

Just make the changes.

In this country you do and you can't "just make the changes".

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regardless to whether climate change is man made or not, why do so many need people to believe that it is caused by man?

It's not a belief. Unlike a religious faith, there is actual data and evidence to refer to.

Why should you care if people have "faith" in the "science" of man made climate change?

I don't see why you need true believers/followers.

What changes need to be made?

Does it take a population of "following sheep" to enact the plan?

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I'll take "Executive Orders" for $500 Alex

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Regardless to whether climate change is man made or not, why do so many need people to believe that it is caused by man?

So they get on board with doing something to slow it down or stop it instead of wasting time debating if it is real or not.

You don't need a majority to "stop it" or "slow it down" or "make changes".

You don't need a consensus.

Just make the changes.

In this country you do and you can't "just make the changes".

Just what kind of changes are you talking about?

I am always troubled by the way people who do not understand how science works reject it altogether, elevating their opinions above pragmatic observation, and trying to impose those opinions on society. Science is not settled by debate, it is settled by observation, inference, and testing falsifiable hypotheses. It is difficult to isolate all the drivers of climate in the field, but the greenhouse effect has been proven in the lab. In fact, you can prove it in your own kitchen with a bottle of water, a thermometer, and some Alka-Seltzer.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

This is why you look at the data presented and see if it is valid.

Well...can anyone off the street interpret Science data ?

I doubt I could. Anyway...how do you interpret data to show that rise of CO2 is causing global warming. No data can show this...you have to interpret it from the data wih human eyes.

originally posted by: Bennyzilla
a reply to: DJW001

Nice I love that you actually found a list. Stars for that.

A lot of real scientists on it too, with science degrees and peer reviewed studies, all saying that climate change is being blown out of proportion.

Oh... so now it's gone from "it's not happening" to "it's being blown out of proportion." Interesting.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: MarioOnTheFly

Oh really? Let's post our sources. I'd bet that the scientists I produce would be paid FAR more than the scientists you can produce.

Here's one:
Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers

So I hope you have scientists getting pay checks in the millions from special interests.

so this somehow proves he is a liar ?