Science Teachers’ Grasp of Climate Change Is Found Lacking

a reply to: Krazysh0t

The kitchen is a good place to prove a point.

Put a pot of water on the stove, and let it slowly heat- The deniers will then dump a dozen ice cubes into the pot, pull out a thermometer and say 'look look! there water has dropped in temperature! they will walk away with a sense of satisfaction not knowing that the stove is still on and the water is still yet to boil.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Eh, you've discovered a niche in the market. Why don't you devise your own training programme for academia to ensure they get the message across that Man has created Global Warming and now THEY must pay for it, through taxation.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

Your gripe was that there wasn't enough teaching about it. After a few lessons of dumbed down CC, what is there to teach?
I'm sure you are used to dumbed-down science and can come up with better lesson plans. Be careful, because if you stray from the correct version, you may be prosecuted.

Don't be coy. It's possible to present a watered down version of AGW that goes over the core ideas. CO2, greenhouse gases, the heating cycle, etc without getting into the nitty gritty. That isn't the problem in the OP. The problem in the OP is the misrepresentation of what is known and accepted by scientists by saying things like, "there is no scientific consensus on AGW," or, "only natural climate change is happening."

What makes you think that the core ideas are not now being taught sans "nitty gritty?" There is some consensus on ACC but there are still some who disagree. Shall we burn them at the stake for ACC heresy? Climate models still have the problem of what to do with water vapor. There are still questions about the behavior of the "true believers" who will do whatever it takes to prove their point.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Interesting topic and its surprising to me at least that they teach climate change a occurring as a natural phenomenon rather than as man made, or emissions driven. But here's where I'd take issue somewhat with your conclusion: "These standards need to change. We need better education on this valid science so that students know what is happening in the world and we can work on adequate solutions to either slow or halt the problems altogether."

Here's the reason I disagree. To change the standards and improve education across the board as to all appropriate grade levels through high school would be enormously expensive and would probably produce on limited results and here's the reason why! First, take any school district across the US and do the maths and you'll find that probably only 25% of the students are smart enough to benefit from that approach. Of the bottom 75%, fully 50%, or 37.5% never learn to read or write above the 8th grade level and 50% of that group, 18.75% are headed to prison, one way or another. Now, 37.5% (the top 50% of the 75%) are "functionally literate" but aren't necessarily swayed by information, logic and reason simply because they don't care or they don't have time or are stressed out or can't remember past the last Face book posting or whatever.

So here's my suggestion. As to the top 25%, they should probably be in advanced classes anyway, give them the detailed scientific data. With reduced numbers comes reduced systems costs. As to the bottom 75% for a lot less money and with far more effect, you can much more efficiently develop and implement an intensive Propaganda campaign. Here in the US at least, Madison Avenue marketing techniques have for decades proven to be quite effective and they're "off the shelf" technologies so they're reasonably inexpensive! What we tend to forget is that at least as to the bottom tier of 50% of the students can't and or won't ever really think for themselves; they're entirely reactive and operate and respond to emotive stimuli rather than reason and/or logic.

So.......all I'm saying is that you'll get a lot more bang for your buck with Madison Avenue marketing propaganda than you will with "Science" which is way over the heads of 75% of the students in school.

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

Actually, in most public school systems, the requirements that teachers are to have a degree in their course subject matter is either exceptionally lax, or non-existant. Most often, all that is required is a Master's degree or equivalent (4-year degree plus professional experience).

My high school physics teacher, who was very good, had a degree in English. And my advanced calculus teacher had a degree in Philosophy (he was also pretty good).

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Eh, you've discovered a niche in the market. Why don't you devise your own training programme for academia to ensure they get the message across that Man has created Global Warming and now THEY must pay for it, through taxation.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

Your gripe was that there wasn't enough teaching about it. After a few lessons of dumbed down CC, what is there to teach?
I'm sure you are used to dumbed-down science and can come up with better lesson plans. Be careful, because if you stray from the correct version, you may be prosecuted.

Don't be coy. It's possible to present a watered down version of AGW that goes over the core ideas. CO2, greenhouse gases, the heating cycle, etc without getting into the nitty gritty. That isn't the problem in the OP. The problem in the OP is the misrepresentation of what is known and accepted by scientists by saying things like, "there is no scientific consensus on AGW," or, "only natural climate change is happening."

What makes you think that the core ideas are not now being taught sans "nitty gritty?" There is some consensus on ACC but there are still some who disagree. Shall we burn them at the stake for ACC heresy? Climate models still have the problem of what to do with water vapor. There are still questions about the behavior of the "true believers" who will do whatever it takes to prove their point.

The report I linked to in the OP.

a reply to: TonyS

First, I gave you a star because this is the first analysis in the thread that went along these lines and I found it refreshing to come from this direction instead of relentless attacking climate change like everyone else has. So kudos to that.


What do you think of the tiered progressive education systems like in Japan or Europe that reward the next level of schooling with the tests you take in the previous levels? So advanced kids in elementary school would test into advanced schools in middle school and beyond. Poorer performing students test into mediocre schools.

That could be an answer to the problem that you are talking about, because I DO see where you are coming from and that is one of the problems we have with insisting that every student in America receives the same education.

Me, I don't know what to think about them. Though I am worried that they would put too much stress onto a student's life to make sure he tests successfully at such a young age and could potentially screw their whole life up because they tested poorly the day they took the tests. I'm sure you could also make it so that students can move between the tiers throughout their grade school experience depending on how they perform as well.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

I literally had a teacher who was reading and studying the textbook for the subject he was teaching while teaching the class. He managed by staying a chapter or two ahead of the chapter the class was currently on. It worked, but yeah. Craziness DOES happen in public schools.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
Craziness DOES happen in public schools.

Indeed.

There are many "science" teachers either afraid to teach evolution, or include creationism misinformation (in one form or another) when covering evolution for the same reasons that global warming is being obfuscated -- politics.

And in this era, politics and religion have become intertwined.

a reply to: SkepticOverlord

Yea, I was a little hesitant to bring up the parallels here to the evolution debate, but I guess it should be noted. This issue affecting climate science being taught correctly in schools has existed in the evolution debate for much longer.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Bluntone22
Maybe you're looking at this the wrong way.
Science teachers have a science degree from a college. They should be able to make an informed decision on climate change. Maybe that's exactly what they are doing.

No, they have curriculums and they are supposed to teach that, not their personal biases.

I learned along time ago many teachers are unqualified to teach. They were discussing chemical reactions and apparently the teacher told the students that fire needs a fuel source and heat to produce a fire. Not incorrect in itself but I proceeded to explain that fire is a form of oxidation no different then metal rusting. The amount of heat produced in oxidation increases we will see flames. And discussed how we could use magnesium to create a fire hr was under the impression that only carbons could he burned like wood or paper.

To make a long story short he went to his teacher explained that fire is something being oxidized and was told he was wrong. So he returns to dad and said I was wrong. So I figured he didn't eaplain something right so the next day I call the school to speak with the teacher. And once again explained that fire is oxidation and that chemical reaction produces heat. To which she said so you think something rusting is the same as something being on fire anyone can see that's not the same or my car would catch fire. To which I said the amount of heat released depends on the speed of oxidation and in her car the rust doesn't produce enough heat to start a fire since the heat is easily disbursed. She then told me that I need to leave science to professionals to which I explained I have a PHD in chemistry.She actually hung up on me. When I called back to speak yi the principle he informed me that teachers follow a strict guide set by the state on approved corriculums. Thus didn't make me feel better as I explained if the teacher doesn't understand what they are teaching how is the students to grasp it. Needless to say I spent a lot of time that year with his science homework. As a kicker we did a science project on oxidation for his class.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: pteridine

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Cobaltic1978
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Eh, you've discovered a niche in the market. Why don't you devise your own training programme for academia to ensure they get the message across that Man has created Global Warming and now THEY must pay for it, through taxation.

I said teachers should teach the science, and I said nothing about teaching the solutions. Please don't put words in my mouth.

Seriously, why is the go to response to try to debunk climate science, to bring politics into the picture? Then when I dismiss that I'm told that I'm not analyzing evidence. That isn't evidence, it's just a logical fallacy that wastes our time.

Simply because climate change is a political issue. We have to ensure that all the Governments of the World are working on solutions to address it.

It is a science topic FIRST. Political issue second. Teach the science, debate the politics.

Can you not see the correlation between Cliamte Change and the increase in Green Taxes? Yet our Governments fly in the face of what they have been preaching and turn to Shale because we are sitting on a fortune.

Can you not just look at scientific evidence to prove or disprove science? Is that too hard for you?

Teaching the science to grade school and high school students is beyond the capabilities of the teachers and the students. This is why the topic is covered in a few lessons. "Climate Science" isn't a science unto itself; it is derived from the physics and chemistry that are being taught at various levels in public schools. Necessary concepts for rudimentary understanding of the problem and solutions include IR vibrational frequencies, sorption-desorption, hydrate decomposition, liquid-vapor equilibria, chemical reactions of CO2, solubility of CO2 in water of varying salinity at various temperatures and pressures, supercritical fluids, brine fields, meteorology, oceanography, solar cycles, biological interactions with CO2, methane emissions, and water phase changes.

Oh please! If they can dumb down other sciences enough to fit them in a high school curriculum, they can do the same to climate science. Don't try this complexity argument with me. All science is super complex and grade school students don't get a good understanding of any of it without further study.

Anthropogenic Climate Change is cult-like and is defended by its adherents with Orwellian arguments. Senator Whitehouse [D-RI] wants to prosecute non-believers; Bernie Sanders agrees. See my previous post that you were unable to respond to.

Irrelevant to if the science is true or not. Maybe that's why I ignored your post?

Your gripe was that there wasn't enough teaching about it. After a few lessons of dumbed down CC, what is there to teach?
I'm sure you are used to dumbed-down science and can come up with better lesson plans. Be careful, because if you stray from the correct version, you may be prosecuted.

Don't be coy. It's possible to present a watered down version of AGW that goes over the core ideas. CO2, greenhouse gases, the heating cycle, etc without getting into the nitty gritty. That isn't the problem in the OP. The problem in the OP is the misrepresentation of what is known and accepted by scientists by saying things like, "there is no scientific consensus on AGW," or, "only natural climate change is happening."

What makes you think that the core ideas are not now being taught sans "nitty gritty?" There is some consensus on ACC but there are still some who disagree. Shall we burn them at the stake for ACC heresy? Climate models still have the problem of what to do with water vapor. There are still questions about the behavior of the "true believers" who will do whatever it takes to prove their point.

The report I linked to in the OP.

If the core ideas are not the physics and chemistry but the conclusion of climate scientists, then not all are teaching the gospel. Your reference says "Many teachers also provide misinformation about climate change, the survey found. The evidence that human activity is a major cause of recent climate change is overwhelming, but 30 percent of the 1,500 teachers surveyed said they emphasized that recent global warming “is likely due to natural causes,” while 12 percent said they did not emphasize human causes. Half of that 12 percent said they did not discuss any causes at all." One can conclude that 58% teach that human activity is the cause. That is a good percentage unless the ACC inquisitors demand complete compliance with dogma and do not accept the idea that those who have not taken the pledge early will likely succumb at some point.
Further, your reference states "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." How is this contradictory? A consensus is not necessarily unanimous.
Professor Plutzer's paper is a tempest in a teapot supported by those who "have found the truth" and now wish to intensify the indoctrination of school children. They should stay calm. There is plenty of time between grade school and Congressional membership for the dumbed down science you ask for.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey

Intelligent people often miss the salient points about global warming because they mistake the political controversies for reasoned analysis.

I would argue that those people are not intelligent--at least, not scientifically intelligent. Maybe "illogical" is the correct term.

There is no "correct" global temperature, it bounces rhythmically from glaciation to hot house over aeons due to natural factors beyond human control.

I wholeheartedly agree with this point, even though there are many with very loud bullhorns on the AGW side who pretend to know the perfect balance on earth of all things to thrive--it's laughable at best, purposefully deceptive at worst (and, IMO, increasingly the more likely motivation).

The issue is that over the past 500 years, humanity has created a global civilization based on a limited range of climatic parameters. Major cities are built on the coast. Agriculture is based on predictable growing seasons and access to water. As the climate changes, civilization will need to adapt. In the past, this was easy. As the water level rose or fell you could move your wooden huts. New York, London, San Francisco and Hong Kong are not going anywhere.

This is why I have always--at least since I've been reluctantly contributing to AGW and CC threads, been arguing that modern society needs to learn to adapt. At some point, we got amnesia as to how to maintain sustainability as a species and as separate cultures. But even so, it's easily shown that in the past, entire civilizations have disappeared without much of a trace, so it's not unheard to just up and leave a relatively immobile civilization. The problem is that modern human beings tend to have no idea how to plan for the future of their culture and only live in the now, thinking that everything is always going to be this way. Vast amounts of evidence speak otherwise.

Since we cannot control all of the factors that influence long term climate change, we have to make an economic choice: Do we exercise what control we have by regulating carbon emissions (and other measures, like increasing urban albedo, cultivating more woodland, etc.) at relatively low cost now, or do we allow the warming trend to continue and apply technological fixes later?

See, it's not as easy as an either or, because I would argue that we don't "allow" anything like a warming trend to happen. Sure, we may mildly contribute to it and increase its duration or speed of change, but it's not as if we all just died off the face of the earth tomorrow that everything concerning climate change would alter its natural cycle. I'm honestly not convinced that it would do much of anything, at least as far as the next cycle through the next ice age and back into a warm period is concerned.

I do, however, think that we need to be cognizant of local environments and making as little a negative impact on them as possible, and that includes stopping building and expansion of already-existing urban environments. It is the mega-city that is the root of most evil as it pertains to polluting and poisoning localized environments, sometimes affecting larger ecosystems as a consequence.

But my solution is to do neither one of yours. We need to make a conscious effort to revert back to smaller towns, go back to dirt roads in cities (but well-maintained dirt roads), reduce our consumption of plastics and electricity and fossil fuels as much as can happen willingly (not at the forceful hand of daddy government), and just accept the fact that positive changes will take time, and that all of the people expecting quick fixes need to realize that it's just not possible, and what the proposed options will "fix" isn't even the real root of the problem, anyhow.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

I agree that we, as a culture, need to rethink the way we relate to our environment. As you can see by my current avatar, I am not a Luddite, and I think that urban life has the potential to actually reduce the negative impact on the land by freeing more up for agriculture and wilderness. We definitely need to stop the needless and harmful waste generated by consumerism. Hopefully, people will begin to realize how unnecessary and destructive it is to drink water out of disposible plastic bottles.

All eyes should be on China now: they have exhausted their water table, fouled their air, and built developments they do not need. They will need to start solving some of the same problems that will be arising in the rest of the "developed world."

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: SlapMonkey

As you can see by my current avatar, I am not a Luddite, and I think that urban life has the potential to actually reduce the negative impact on the land by freeing more up for agriculture and wilderness. We definitely need to stop the needless and harmful waste generated by consumerism. Hopefully, people will begin to realize how unnecessary and destructive it is to drink water out of disposible plastic bottles.

You don't have to be a luddite to think that mega-cities are a major part of the problem concerning negative environmental impact. There are happy mediums in there. And I'm not talking about cities the size of, say, Cincinnati (near where I live)...I'm talking about the largest metropolitan areas in the world: Tokyo, Seoul, Shanghai, Guangzhou, Delhi, Mexico City, and so on down the list.

All eyes should be on China now: they have exhausted their water table, fouled their air, and built developments they do not need. They will need to start solving some of the same problems that will be arising in the rest of the "developed world."

Yeah, China is an environmental mess, at least in it's large urban areas.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Well..........thanks for the star. I don't get many of them, I guess because I'm too much a pragmatist as opposed to being an ideologue.

As a US expat, I grew up overseas in a country with a tiered progressive education system and I'm quite supportive of the idea but.....to be implemented in the US, there would need to be some complimentary structural changes and some changes in attitudes toward a more realistic viewpoint about children's capabilities. Hopefully I'm not going too far off topic here.......but the biggest problem in the US is that in the Public schools systems, it seems the very most money is spent on those with the least potential. In the rest of the "civilized" world, the exact opposite approach is taken which explains why the US tests so low in maths and science against the rest of the civilized world. I frankly don't think the solution is workable in the US at the moment because we've focused so long and so hard on the equality of education as opposed to the "quality" of the education. To get to a tiered progressive education system, I think the first step would be to adopt the Warren Buffet solution. Familiar with that? Turns out Buffet's a bit more radical than most ever knew. In an interview with Becky Quick, (yea, I'm a CNBC junkie), when asked how best to improve public education Warren stated in so many words; "You want to improve public education? Outlaw "Private" education and see just how fast and furious the middle and upper middle class immediately demands changes in the Public system to improve it!" With that change, a tiered system could begin to be implemented. But there's a complimentary change that needs be made as well and that's to introduce the European model of "Trades" education for those that don't "test up". In San Antonio, Texas, for example, which is 85% Hispanic, the parents rose up in revolt at the high drop out rates and DEMANDED the school system change from the "everyone must go to college" system to a system that provides an alternate path via Trades training. One parent interviewed stated that his son wasn't interested in studying Evolution; that instead, his son liked helping him in the machine shop because "he likes making things with his hands, he likes handling and examining the finished product". So, San Antonio has been partnering with private industry to provide hands on Trades training in conjunction with assured apprenticeship programs WHEN the child graduates High School! The drop out rate has dropped significantly; and the test scores have risen! Most don't know it but to be skilled in trades, you end up having to master quite a bit of Math and Geometry; Welders have to know a lot about Chemistry. Plumbers have to know about "flow rates" and pressure changes relative to pipe diameters. And Electricians? (I can't do that stuff!).

As to my point about how the better use of resources would be to use Madison Avenue advertising techniques, I would only add that something must be done and done so quickly and in the most efficient manner possible. Its quite obvious that because of the various effects of climate change, huge changes in the way life is lived in the US are just over the horizon, or perhaps, as in my area with wind farms, its already on the horizon. US Americans are going to have to learn to live with profound changes in the way they live their lives. As a result, its fundamentally necessary that US American youth be educated as to why these changes are important and must of needs be made and for those for whom education has only a limited effect a carefully crafted and skillfully implemented Advertising campaign is most needed.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

Thought I'd link this back to a thread I did a few years ago:

Creationists Team Up With Climate Deniers To Take Down Science Education.

(Because it's very much related, and adds a conspiracy angle).


But funny enough I went back and looked at some of the responses, and on page 3 there's a few noticeably skeptical ones from a member named Krazysh0t. You sound open to the possibility of man-made global warming there, but very leery about the solutions or the end-game.

I just think that's hilarious considering how many posts I've seen now where you're accused of being a religious zealot alarmist Al Gore lovin Liberal carbonphobe.

Could it be you started out firmly on the skeptical side of the fence?

No wonder these people attack you so much: you were once like them, but instead of supporting the team and filtering out anything that didn't conform to your confirmation biases, you actually went and looked at the information objectively and *gulp*...denied ignorance...

Traitor!!

originally posted by: mc_squared

No wonder these people attack you so much: you were once like them, but instead of supporting the team and filtering out anything that didn't conform to your confirmation biases, you actually went and looked at the information objectively and *gulp*...denied ignorance...

Traitor!!

That was when he realised that satellites had been measuring the global temperatures since the 1800's.

originally posted by: dragonridr
She then told me that I need to leave science to professionals to which I explained I have a PHD in chemistry.She actually hung up on me.

I would've just sent her a picture of your avatar and explained you also have a pet dragon. Maybe then she would've believed your crazy gobbledigook magic oxidation science.

I find this is one of the hardest parts of communicating climate science - the counter-intuitive bits like the difference between weather and climate for example. It makes people, even sometimes smart people, so incredulous that they just mentally hang up the phone before they ever give themselves a chance to understand something.

Thankfully the human race still has enough smart people who can get past that bend, but it really is a shame about the ones left behind.

a reply to: smurfy

Not sure what you're referring to but is that the same as how all the deniers here continue ignoring the physics behind climate change that were first proven in the 1800s?

Those same physics that are so easily reproducible today that 5th graders can confirm the proof which supposedly "doesn't exist"?



These kids may be poorly taught but still seem to be light years ahead of the average ATS skeptic if you ask me

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: DBCowboy

Still don't see why you need the population to follow the man made bandwagon.

Even if you get to keep your guns? Are you one of those people who resents being forced to use funny looking light bulbs that save you money?

I object to those 'bulbs' because they give my wife migraines and I don't like elevated levels of mercury in my house if I drop one. I save my money for LED's.