HS Student Challenges GW in Textbook

This HS student filed a complaint because the textbook said that global warming is uncertain, who is he to say otherwise. For years now people have been trying to figure out the wording for global warming and those that concur.

"Last year an international collection of hundreds of scientists and government officials unanimously approved wording that said the scientific community had “very high confidence,” meaning more than 90 percent likelihood, that global warming is caused by humans."

www.livescience.com...

LaClair said he was particularly upset about the book's treatment of global warming. James Hansen, the director of NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, recently heard about LaClair's concerns and has lent him some support.

Hansen has sent Houghton Mifflin a letter stating that the book's discussion on global warming contained “a large number of clearly erroneous statements” that give students “the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain.”

The edition of the textbook published in 2005, which is in high school classrooms now, states that “science doesn't know whether we are experiencing a dangerous level of global warming or how bad the greenhouse effect is, if it exists at all.”

Global Warming is Mcarthyism to the highest degree where all the scientists who disagree with the findings are threatened and have to put their careers on the line just because they are pointing out the facts. There's a reason why they have started calling it climate change instead of Global Warming. It's because they don't really know what the climate is doing other then changing. It's arrogance to the highest level that we think that humans can destroy an ecosystem that has been around for billions of years in our short lifespan.

WEATHER...

... is a classic example of what mathematicians and physicists call a "chaotic" system.


What this means is that long term predictions are extremely difficult.


What we do know from this fact, however, is that CHANGE IS ALWAYS HAPPENING.


It goes up, it goes down. Causes? Almost impossible to nail down. It's CHAOS.


If it happens to go up, which it always will eventually, then you have evidence for those in the global warming camp. If it happens to go down, they just say "Wait a little bit. See! It's up again! We're gonna burn!"


This is selective evidence, and very misleading.


The sun is by far the most important factor in determining the temperature of the earth. Turns out its just a little bit brighter recently, and this increase in brightness turns out to be just about the amount needed to account for alleged temperature increases found around the globe.


Not to mention the fact that the other planets appear to be warming as well.


The argument at this point isn't whether or not warming is happening, but rather how would it serve the interests of the global elite to impose their "solution" on the masses?


Almost everything they suggest would diminish the progress of humanity.


For all this earth-loving attitude, I ask you... where is all the government's interest and funding for alternative fuels and independent, clean energy generation? Where are all the research labs they're supporting? Where are the subsidies for alternatives?


You can believe the government wants it when they spend money on it. If they ask YOU for the money, that's really all they were looking for. Your cash.


This is all just a heavily-hyped excuse for diminishing the financial resources of the masses. Prevent nations from industrializing and you secure your power over them. This has always been the plan of the elite.

Global warming is happening because of the sun. We are to carbon foot printed, even chipped, and taxed for existence due to the global warming politics, which is neither political science, nor science.

We approach political correctness on global warming when questioning anything about it, and why? It is a set of observations that exist during fluctuations of solar output. This winter was colder, but now they want their global carbon tax, that does nothing but put more money at the top of the pyramid, by shifting their position to "climate change."

There is no question that this issue is laced with superstition, but not on the side of doubt, a basic characteristic of science. Instead of having real science, the current paradigm as many previous paradigms predominates because so many people have staked their entire education and professional career on it. No so called "expert," in this scientific paradigm wishes to change their scripted viewpoint to fit the facts.

While global warming in its political correctness accuses others of denial, and conforming to the wishes of oil companies and so forth, it is heavily funded by vested interests who want this hysteria as another false flag problem-reaction-solution scenario. The end result is higher taxes, and and end to western civilization as we have known it.

While big money wants this tax, it relies upon the altruism of many ordinary people to slide it into our system. Think it over, especially when solutions cost too much and do nothing.

“the mistaken impression that the scientific evidence of global warming is doubtful and uncertain.”

"Mistaken impressions"? AGW proponents accusing someone of "mistaken impressions"?

That textbook is correct; no matter how much that fact threatens the AGW proponent's faiths, salaries and tax incomes, doesn't make it any less true.

The fact that they are losing scientific debates does not help their case.

I agree with the above.

Originally posted by Scalamander
Global Warming is Mcarthyism to the highest degree where all the scientists who disagree with the findings are threatened and have to put their careers on the line just because they are pointing out the facts. There's a reason why they have started calling it climate change instead of Global Warming. It's because they don't really know what the climate is doing other then changing. It's arrogance to the highest level that we think that humans can destroy an ecosystem that has been around for billions of years in our short lifespan.

How many species have we killed off for our own desires? RAPID extinction of species is not doing ecosystems any good. it messes up food chains that other species rely on. Some can go ahead and feed off other things, but some can go extinct from it. To say that humans cannot destroy an ecosystem that has been around for billions of years in our short lifespan is ignorant to the highest degree.

If it happens to go up, which it always will eventually, then you have evidence for those in the global warming camp. If it happens to go down, they just say "Wait a little bit. See! It's up again! We're gonna burn!"

I agree with you that there are general UPs and DOWNs. That's why you look at the general trend and averages.

this graph is from the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
Intergovernmental = ALL governments have to agree with it in order to produce this graph. No single government is "profitting". And IPCC is under the UN.


This graph suggest rapid rate of temperature increase over the 100 years. (hmm guess when cars were widely used? airplanes? rapid population growth? industries?)

The sun is by far the most important factor in determining the temperature of the earth. Turns out its just a little bit brighter recently, and this increase in brightness turns out to be just about the amount needed to account for alleged temperature increases found around the globe.

Ever heard of Green House Gases? We are emitting CO2, CH4s, halocarbons, NOx, SOx and other pollutants that absorb solar radiation. Okay, so the Sun is emitting more rays, we are not helping by emitting substances that absorb this radiation and causing earth to heat up.

There is GOOD and CLEAR science that there is human involvement in global warming. you are just blind to it.

If humans are causing global warming, it must be so bad that it is heating up Mars too!

Find and compare the pictures of martian poles from the 70s and from today.

The hockey stick graph is false and therefore meaningless. There have been many interglacial periods that were warmer than now; in fact, 1934 was warmer than now, the warmest year recorded. Furthermore, notice that right around the time of post war economic boom (if history knowledge serves) we see a dip in temperature. If CO2 truly was the entire blame, would the temperature not have spiked right around then as the population spiked and technology entered perhaps it's most polluting and disposable stage ever?

Ever heard of Green House Gases? We are emitting CO2, CH4s, halocarbons, NOx, SOx and other pollutants that absorb solar radiation. Okay, so the Sun is emitting more rays, we are not helping by emitting substances that absorb this radiation and causing earth to heat up.

Ever heard of the fact that water vapour is a much stronger greenhouse gas than CO2 and happens to make up a much larger concentration in the atmosphere?

Ever heard of the the fact that plants need CO2 and that it isn't a pollutant in any sense?

Ever heard of the fact that cows emit more CH4 than all of civilization does, and that natural contributions of CO2 vastly outweigh anthropogenic contributions to atmospheric CO2?

Ever heard of the fact that the Earth has been very slightly cooling since 1998 and not warming at all?

There is GOOD and CLEAR science that there is human involvement in global warming.

There is not. Either way, you certainly have not shown any of it.