Posted by Tina
If you have always thought that schools in America are interested in educating our kids and training them to be thinking adults fagedaboudit! Schools in America are nothing but propaganda bakeries that are determined to advance the leftist perspective and cookie cutter adults. I’m angry as he**…can you tell? Read it and weep for the children of America.
Controversy is brewing over new Common Core State Standards in English that call on public schools to emphasize the reading of “information text” instead of fictional literature. According to the Washington Post, English teachers across the country are upset by what they consider the government’s effort “to drive literature out of the classroom.”
English teachers are right to be upset, but they shouldn’t take it personally. The government has nothing much against literature, per se. Rather, this initiative is driven in large part by the desire to promote political propaganda in the classroom. The study of literature is being downgraded in the process, but for a good cause.
Consider that one of the “informational texts” recommended as a replacement for, say, Great Expectations is “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.” Students would thus study government propaganda in English class (this Executive Order was issued under President Bush, but it is still propaganda — a political sop to the environmental left, as Stanley Kurtz shows).
Another Common Core’s non-fiction exemplar is an excerpt from a 2009 New Yorker essay by Atul Gawande on health care. This too is propaganda – an effort to show that Obamacare is wise policy.
Proponents of downgrading the teaching of literature claim that their goal is to make sure U.S. students can read and understand complicated texts. But there are plenty of complicated texts that don’t amount to political propaganda, much less propaganda relating to current hot-button policy issues in which the Obama administration is heavily invested. If teaching students how to read such texts were the only goal here, the list of exemplar tests wouldn’t include one-sided political tracts about health care and the environment.
The Washington Post attempts to say that this idea “trickled up” from the classrooms across America but deep in the storyit’s acknowledged that, “”the Obama administration kicked the notion into high gear when it required states to adopt the common standards — or an equivalent — in order to compete for Race to the Top grant funds.”
Do follow the link and read the entire Powerline post, you’ll find out how the curriculum for America’s kids is being decided by the likes of former domestic terrorist Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorn along with fellow traveler, Linda Darling-Hammond.
This is another consequence of No Child Left Behind. But luckily in Chico, we don’t have to worry about it because our high schools do not bother wasting any time with the state standards. If you have a student in high school go to the state standards webpage and look to see how your child’s classwork compares with those standards. Our students do not write papers anymore and they do not follow the standards. The only thing required is that they do well on the standardized tests.
“Consider that one of the “informational texts” recommended as a replacement for, say, Great Expectations is “Executive Order 13423: Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management.””
Huh? Great Expectations is around 400 pages. Executive Order 13423 is five pages. There’s no way one is a “replacement” for another. The novel would take weeks of class work and homework, the order should only take one class period.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2007-01-26/pdf/07-374.pdf
Being able to read and understand the text of a law is an important life skill, and one that too many of our citizens do not possess. This should absolutely be taught in school.
And when public schools have students read opinion essays, they almost never have students read only one side. Powerline gives no evidence that the pro-Obamacare essay isn’t taught alongside an anti-Obamacare essay. If they are only giving one side, that could be reasonably described as propoganda, but there’s nothing in the Common Core that advocates only teaching one side of a controversial issue.
I love literature; that’s why I want to teach English. But informational texts are not the enemy. That’s a red herring. Both literature and informational texts can and should be taught alongside each other, as both are important. The over-emphasis on prepping for standardized tests is what gets in the way more than anything.
EO 13423 is “ONE” of the “informational texts” to “REPLACE” literary works. The number of pages matter very little. There are literally millions of “informational texts” to choose from so clearly the intent here is indoctrination of America’s children to believe an discredited global warming theory and in English classes. Pure progressive activism! And before you argue with me I recall a few years back reading that this was one of the great “new ideas” of progressive activists in teaching…to use math and English classes to teach about causes such as global warming.
“…but there’s nothing in the Common Core that advocates only teaching one side of a controversial issue.”
There’s also very little evidence that any teacher in America would recognize a one-sided position on these issues. All of you have gone through the indoctrination machine known as our public education system. All of you have been exposed to the one-sided media and entertainment machine. How do I know? The many, many parents that have been dumbfounded by the crap their kids are being taught. Blatant examples of indoctrination teaching that’s been reported. Articles exposing the intentions of men like Bill Ayers who has had a profound influence over the curriculum and teaching methods in our schools. My own experience with respect to my children and my grandchildren. This has been going on for years in ways both subtle and overt.
“The over-emphasis on prepping for standardized tests is what gets in the way more than anything.”
Teachers that actually teach shouldn’t have to “prep” for standardized tests. Their students should be able to pass a standardized test because they understand the material presented in class. When they cannot, it is an indication that the teacher has failed to identify those kids who need extra help, failed to adequately teach the material or, in extreme cases, because the teacher is unqualified and needs to be reviewed, tested and/or removed.
The public has been paying tremendous amounts of money to educate our kids. Most of this money has been used to compensate administrators and teachers to the point of their becoming wealthy (at least by Obama’s standards). Yet they are turning out an inferior product:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesmarshallcrotty/2012/03/26/7-signs-that-americas-educational-decline-is-jeopardizing-its-national-security/
The article listed 7 fundamental points at issue:
1. The United States invests more in K-12 public education than many other developed countries, yet U.S. students remain poorly prepared to compete with global peers,
2. More than 25 percent of U.S. students fail to graduate high school in four years; for Hispanic and and African-American students, the number approaches 40 percent,
3. Only 25% of U.S. students are proficient or better in civics, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress,
4. In a global economy, where foreign language competency is critical, eight in ten Americans only speak English (with no foreign language capability at all),
5. According to a recent report by the not-for-profit testing organization, ACT, only 22 percent of U.S. high school students met “college ready” standards in all of their core subjects; these figures are even lower for Hispanic and African-American students,
6. Despite high U.S. unemployment, and far higher under-employment, major U.S. employers cannot find qualified American applicants to fill their job openings,
7. 75% of U.S. citizens ages 17-24 cannot pass military entrance exams because they are not physically fit, have criminal records, or because they lack critical skills needed in modern warfare, including how to locate on a map military theaters in which the U.S. is fulsomely engaged, such as Afghanistan.
It should begin to dawn on the brightest of the bunch (our educators) that the problem is the teaching methods and content beginning in kindergarten. Social engineering and progressive political causes have taken front and center and learning has taken a back seat.
It should be noted that all conservative efforts to make changes have been met with derision and defiance…yet none can defend this miserable record. (This bleeds into any discussion about social reforms as well) The basic deal from progressives is, “Although our methods have proven to be total crap, conservatives can’t possibly have a better idea.”
As if my thoughts have been answered from on high, Glenn Fairman at The American Thinker shares a personal experience which begins:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/educations_great_divide_my_time_in_the_trenches.html
RE: “Powerline gives no evidence that the pro-Obamacare essay isn’t taught alongside an anti-Obamacare essay.”
This has to be one of the stupidest things I have ever read since the passing of Chris’ mentor and intellectual superior. Pity the poor future English student force fed this sort of mindless, fallacious, and illogical crap from Chris. So much for “critical thinking”.
A bright student (before being beaten and bullied into submission by teacher Chris) might ask “Where is your evidence?”
The problem is, of course, Chris has none and offers none. Why? Could it be that there is no evidence? Especially that there is no evidence coming from “Common Core.”
Another Chris clone (student) might similarly argue the Nuremberg trials gave no evidence that Nazi Germany treated Jews well. This is what our education system is giving us, mentally defective clowns like Chris.
It makes me want to vomit.
And More good reading courtesy of David Solway at PJ Media:
http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-namby-pamby-state/?singlepage=true
I recall the two basic required college classes in “Psychology” and “Sociology” were nothing more than half-baked, institutionalized, progressive propaganda. You know, the “higher learning” factories that produce people like Chris. I doubt anything has changed since then.
The “Psychology of Racism” for the most part was based on looking for and identifying racism where it did not actually exist. That class was truly wonderful.
“Sociology 101” consisted of examining a selected string of witless, ideological utopian tracts that included gut churning tripe from Edward Bellamy to Karl Marx.
The least offensive indoctrination class I was forced to take came from the Anthropology Department, “Magic, Witchcraft, and Religion”. At least it had an objective, identifiable, scientific methodology to it rather than a bunch of post-modern, pseudo-intellectual drivel that passes as intellectual these days. At that point I should have changed my major to Anthropology, but that is water which has long passed under the bridge now.
An “English” degree is still the booby prize at most “universities”. If you want to get in and out of university with the least pain, the “we will pass any idiot” English degree is for you. A close second is to take English a little further to a teaching degree. Or a political science degree. Ask any hard science major.
Tina: “There are literally millions of “informational texts” to choose from so clearly the intent here is indoctrination of America’s children to believe an discredited global warming theory and in English classes. Pure progressive activism!”
I’m sorry, but just because you are this ignorant about the world does not mean our children have to be. Global warming is not a “discredited theory” to anyone outside the right-wing echo chamber. It is the scientific consensus. Students need and deserve to be taught the scientific consensus.
You keep talking about how we need to be more competitive with other countries. You really think the problem is that our kids are learning about global warming? Do you think kids in China and Japan aren’t being taught this?
Teaching students that global warming isn’t real, or ignoring the subject entirely, will NOT help us prepare future scientists or make us globally competitive in that area. Your side would disadvantage American students by teaching them scientifically inaccurate information.
“And before you argue with me I recall a few years back reading that this was one of the great “new ideas” of progressive activists in teaching…to use math and English classes to teach about causes such as global warming.”
Curriculum integration has positive effects for students:
http://education.alberta.ca/media/656618/curr.pdf
Students benefit from exploring topics from many different perspectives. Global warming is primarily a scientific issue, but it is also an important social issue. Your side has made it a political issue, one that is debated more in newspaper editorials than among scientists, who mostly only disagree about the extent of the problem, not it’s existence. The English classroom should teach students how to read articles for evidence, how to construct their own arguments, and how to think critically. Global warming is thus a completely valid topic for discussion. I do think the denialist perspective should be taken into consideration and students should not be graded based on whether or not they agree, but they should also not be given the false impression that each side has equal scientific evidence. They do not.
“Teachers that actually teach shouldn’t have to “prep” for standardized tests. Their students should be able to pass a standardized test because they understand the material presented in class.”
You don’t understand how this works. Many teachers are forced to spend a lot of time on test prep in the form of standardized assessments and handouts written by administrators who have never met their students. They are created by a bureacracy and imposed from on high. And they usually do not reflect the way that kids actually learn. They are totally decontextualized and teach isolated parts of language, focusing on memorization of rote facts rather than meaningful learning. This gets in the way of teaching students in a more authentic manner, such as through literature.
“When they cannot, it is an indication that the teacher has failed to identify those kids who need extra help, failed to adequately teach the material or, in extreme cases, because the teacher is unqualified and needs to be reviewed, tested and/or removed.”
Or it’s an indication that the test prep teachers are being forced to perform is not effective, and they should be allowed to teach in ways that address the most immediate needs of their students.
“The public has been paying tremendous amounts of money to educate our kids. Most of this money has been used to compensate administrators and teachers to the point of their becoming wealthy (at least by Obama’s standards).”
No. The national average salary for teachers is about $55,000. “Obama’s standards” for wealth, assuming you mean the tax bracket he wants to raise taxes on, is $250,000. That’s a difference of almost $200,000. So what on earth are you talking about?
“1. The United States invests more in K-12 public education than many other developed countries, yet U.S. students remain poorly prepared to compete with global peers”
Not as a percentage of GDP. We are 37th in spending by that measure:
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/edu_edu_spe-education-spending-of-gdp
“2. More than 25 percent of U.S. students fail to graduate high school in four years; for Hispanic and and African-American students, the number approaches 40 percent,”
So obviously we need less classes dealing with “ethnic studies,” as you have proposed. We’re doing such a great job reaching Hispanic and African-American students already, it’s not like they need to see their cultures reflected in the curriculum or anything.
“3. Only 25% of U.S. students are proficient or better in civics, as measured by the National Assessment of Educational Progress,”
And…you’re mad because they are learning how to read the text of an executive order in class? Wouldn’t that, I don’t know…be good for their understanding of civics?
“4. In a global economy, where foreign language competency is critical, eight in ten Americans only speak English (with no foreign language capability at all),”
Someone should tell the English-only movement.
“5. According to a recent report by the not-for-profit testing organization, ACT, only 22 percent of U.S. high school students met “college ready” standards in all of their core subjects; these figures are even lower for Hispanic and African-American students,”
See #2.
“6. Despite high U.S. unemployment, and far higher under-employment, major U.S. employers cannot find qualified American applicants to fill their job openings,”
One way to help this would be to increase federal aid to college.
“7. 75% of U.S. citizens ages 17-24 cannot pass military entrance exams because they are not physically fit,”
Damn you, Michelle Obama!
“It should begin to dawn on the brightest of the bunch (our educators) that the problem is the teaching methods and content beginning in kindergarten. Social engineering and progressive political causes have taken front and center and learning has taken a back seat.”
No, they haven’t. That’s delusional. At best you can point to a handful of instances of progressive bias in the classroom. Again, teaching global warming does not count. That’s not a progressive issue. That’s science.
Pie Guevara: “A bright student (before being beaten and bullied into submission by teacher Chris) might ask “Where is your evidence?”
The problem is, of course, Chris has none and offers none. Why? Could it be that there is no evidence? Especially that there is no evidence coming from “Common Core.”
Another Chris clone (student) might similarly argue the Nuremberg trials gave no evidence that Nazi Germany treated Jews well. This is what our education system is giving us, mentally defective clowns like Chris.
It makes me want to vomit.”
Try to keep your endless supply of bile under control for two seconds and think, Pie. Powerline made a claim that teachers are biased in favor of liberal causes. It is up to them to provide evidence that teachers are giving a one-sided political perspective. Since they made the initial claim, I don’t have to do anything but point out their own lack of evidence. You would do well to stop digging for imaginary deficiencies in my critical thinking and logic skills, and take some time to address your own. When you can’t get through a single comment without slinging nasty insults, it usually means you do not have confidence in your ability to make your case.
I’m sorry too Chris. You are a product of the dumbed-down curriculum that is highlighted in this post and therefore believe that consensus built on controlled funneling of grant money and rigged peer review constitutes sound scientific discovery. Scientists of the last century who put men in space, created miracle cures, and developed nuclear technology would find your miserable echo chamber laughable and sad.
Chris it is you who live in an echo chamber; the loud echo chamber of pop culture and science built on entertainment for the purpose of generating CASH through redistribution schemes. It will destroy any chance you have of a prosperous and free future. You and your empty headed mop head buddies will become permanent indentured servants of the state, but hey…as long as you’re part of the latest pop culture trend, who cares!
“Students need and deserve to be taught the scientific consensus.”
IDIOT! Students need to learn how to think…they do not need to learn how to slavishly follow the latest schemes dreamed up by charlatans. The way you can tell that these people are charlatans is 1. They dismiss out of hand all expert voices that disagree, 2. They align with those (Al Gore-non-scientist) who advertise to redistribute cash through government using the so-called consensus as as a vehicle. these are not people dedicated to science; these are people dedicated to politics.
“Do you think kids in China and Japan aren’t being taught this?”
Here’s an article that should tell you about education in China:
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/world/asia/thousands-protest-chinas-curriculum-plans-for-hong-kong-schools.html
I have no problem with our kids being taught about the environment. I would prefer it was taught in a science class AND that all sides of the issue be presented. Telling kids that man is absolutely responsible for warming the planet, when in fact that is a major point of contention is WRONG!!! See this article:
http://www.c3headlines.com/global-cooling-dataevidencetrends/
The truth is the science hasn’t figured it out and there is no validity to the warming consensus or man’s contribution which many believe is miniscule. If you had been taught in an educational system on par with education in America pre-1965 YOU WOULD KNOW THIS!
Gotta run for now.
Chris: “I do think the denialist perspective should be taken into consideration…”
Your supercilious description of this differing view (denialist?) is enough evidence for me that teachers, if they share your perspepective, are incapable of teaching about the warming/freezing issue without bias.
“You don’t understand how this works…blah blah blah…created by a bureacracy (bureaucracy) and imposed from on high…blah blah…totally decontextualized …Blah…focusing on memorization of rote facts…Blah blah”
Sounds like a real problem. All that bureaucracy getting in the way. I would think this would make you more sensitive to the complaints in the business world. Alas, you do not seem able to relate. could be a learning problem.
The progressives have introduced crap into education over the last 30-40 years and ISN’T WORKING! Some of that rote learning, it turns out, is fundamental and basic for the success of the students. Emoting or imagining just doesn’t cut it in the grown up world. That is the point.
It is impossible to fix this with a bureaucratic fix although it was worth a try if for no other reason than to further expose the root problem: Instructors have been taught in the same system that has a terrible record overall.
“No. The national average salary for teachers is about $55,000.”
Sorry Chris, their total compensation package is much higher…oh, you don’t think it should count? Tell you what. How about teachers pay their own way in life like I have to. I put the deposits in my 401K. I pay the tab for my healthcare. Those are out of pocket costs for me and a lot of people like me.
“Not as a percentage of GDP.”
You do have that entitlement thing going don’t you? If companies create a higher GDP that means educators deserve a percentage more? Ever heard of private property?
Money is not what creates well educated kids. If it did we’d still be number one. Presented with two vehicles at the same price, an old BMW in excellent condition with low miles and an old BMW that has high mileage and is puking black smoke which would you take? If educators want more compensation they might think about creating a better product! (They might also start protesting HOW education dollars are spent cause the kids are not, generally speaking, benefitting)
“…it’s not like they need to see their cultures reflected in the curriculum or anything.”
Yeah because everyone knows that Hispanic and black kids see numbers differently.
I will not go on with this insanity. You have an excuse for everything. The hard cold fact is that our kids are falling way behind even though we are spending more than other countries.
Tina,
Here is some educational material about human-caused global warming from NASA. (If you can’t trust them, who can you trust?)
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
“Money is not what creates well educated kids. If it did we’d still be number one.”
When we are still, in California, I believe, 49th in the nation in per capita spending?
Explain.
Apparently we are now 35th in the nation spending wise, at least according to one site. States that spend less, however have better scores and graduation rates and there have been studies that show money is not the factor that makes the difference:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/23/us-students-still-lag-beh_n_1695516.html
More here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-gates/bill-gates-school-performance_b_829771.html
And here:
http://www.statebudgetsolutions.org/publications/detail/throwing-money-at-education-isnt-working
(All emphasis mine)
How about these guys:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
See also this article that includes research by NASA scientists and suggests a decided lack of consensus on the issue:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2093264/Forget-global-warming–Cycle-25-need-worry-NASA-scientists-right-Thames-freezing-again.html
Tina, the Heartland Institute has absolutely no credibility when it comes to global warming, or any scientific issue for that matter.
This is the same organization that partnered with Philip Morris in the ’90s to cast doubt on the well-established health risks of second-hand smoke:
“In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with Philip Morris to question the link between secondhand smoke and health risks.[10][29] Philip Morris used Heartland to distribute tobacco-industry material, and arranged for the Heartland Institute to publish “policy studies” which summarized Philip Morris reports.[29][30] The Heartland Institute also undertook a variety of other activities on behalf of Philip Morris, including meeting with legislators, holding “off-the-record” briefings, and producing op-eds, radio interviews, and letters.[29][31] In 1994, at the request of Philip Morris, the Heartland Institute met with Republican Congressmen to encourage them to oppose increases in the federal excise tax. Heartland reported back to Philip Morris that the Congressmen were “strongly in our camp”, and planned further meetings with other legislators.[32]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute#Smoking
Heartland doesn’t care about science or the health of our nation and world. They care about partnering with whoever will make them the most money. First it was Big Tobacco, now it’s Big Oil:
“Oil and gas companies have contributed to the Heartland Institute, including over $600,000 from ExxonMobil between 1998 and 2005.[42] Greenpeace reported that Heartland received almost $800,000 from ExxonMobil.[20] In 2008, ExxonMobil said that they would stop funding to groups skeptical of climate warming, including Heartland.[42][43][44] Joseph Bast, president of the Heartland Institute, argued that ExxonMobil was simply distancing itself from Heartland out of concern for its public image.[42]
The Heartland Institute has also received funding and support from tobacco companies Philip Morris,[29] Altria and Reynolds American, and pharmaceutical industry firms GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer and Eli Lilly.[38] The Independent reported that Heartland’s receipt of donations from Exxon and Philip Morris indicates a “direct link”…”between anti-global warming sceptics funded by the oil industry and the opponents of the scientific evidence showing that passive smoking can damage people’s health.”[10]
As of 2006, the Walton Family Foundation (run by the family of the founder of Wal-Mart) had contributed approximately $300,000 to Heartland. The Heartland Institute published an op-ed in the Louisville Courier-Journal defending Wal-Mart against criticism over its treatment of workers. The Walton Family Foundation donations were not disclosed in the op-ed, and the editor of the Courier-Journal stated that he was unaware of the connection and would probably not have published the op-ed had he known of it.[45] The St. Petersburg Times described the Heartland Institute as “particularly energetic defending Wal-Mart.”[45] Heartland has stated that its authors were not “paid to defend Wal-Mart” and did not receive funding from the corporation; it did not disclose the $300,000+ received from the Walton Family Foundation.[45]”
Earlier this year, Heartland lost several sponsors after releasing an inflammatory billboard campaign which compared people who believe the scientific consensus on global warming to terrorists and mass murderers such as Osama bin Laden, the Unabomber, Charles Manson, and Fidel Castro.
http://articles.latimes.com/2012/may/09/local/la-me-gs-unabomber-billboard-continues-to-hurt-heartland-institute-20120509
In a press release, Heartland President Joseph Bast defended the campaign and falsely claimed, “The most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen. ”
As the LA Times points out, “According to the latest polling conducted by Pew, Gallup, Angus-Reid, Yale and many others, believers in this “fringe theory” would include anywhere from 30% to 50% of Americans and an overwhelming majority of scientists across the globe – few of whom (if any) have ever aligned themselves with a self-described terrorist who killed three people and injured 23. The Unabomber billboard only appeared in Chicago and was up for 24 hours before being pulled due to the controversy…
…Two speakers have withdrawn from the conference. Donna Laframboise, who recently authored a book critiquing the work of the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change, withdrew from that conference. On her blog, nofrakkingconsensus.org, she said her reputation had been “harmed,” adding, “Suddenly, we were all publicly linked to an organization that thinks it’s OK to equate people concerned about climate change with psychopaths.”
Lakely confirms that economist Ross McKitrick has now also withdrawn. In a letter sent to Heartland on Friday, he said, “You cannot simultaneously say that you want to promote a debate while equating the other side to terrorists and mass murderers.”
The Daily Mail misrepresents the findings of the Met Office in its headline and buries the lead.
Halfway through the article, the Daily Mail admits:
“Yet, in its paper, the Met Office claimed that the consequences now would be negligible – because the impact of the sun on climate is far less than man-made carbon dioxide. Although the sun’s output is likely to decrease until 2100, ‘This would only cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08C.’ Peter Stott, one of the authors, said: ‘Our findings suggest a reduction of solar activity to levels not seen in hundreds of years would be insufficient to offset the dominant influence of greenhouse gases.’”
Whoops, I hit send too soon.
Tina, the Daily Mail article you linked to is so misleading that the Met Office actually responded to the piece on its website, pointing out the “numerous errors” in the article and criticizing David Rose’s deliberate misrepresentation of their findings:
“Today the Mail on Sunday published a story written by David Rose entitled “Forget global warming – it’s Cycle 25 we need to worry about”.
This article includes numerous errors in the reporting of published peer reviewed science undertaken by the Met Office Hadley Centre and for Mr. Rose to suggest that the latest global temperatures available show no warming in the last 15 years is entirely misleading.
Despite the Met Office having spoken to David Rose ahead of the publication of the story, he has chosen to not fully include the answers we gave him to questions around decadal projections produced by the Met Office or his belief that we have seen no warming since 1997.
For clarity I have included our full response to David Rose below:A spokesman for the Met Office said: “The ten year projection remains groundbreaking science. The complete period for the original projection is not over yet and these projections are regularly updated to take account of the most recent data.
“The projections are probabilistic in nature, and no individual forecast should be taken in isolation. Instead, several decades of data will be needed to assess the robustness of the projections.
“However, what is absolutely clear is that we have continued to see a trend of warming, with the decade of 2000-2009 being clearly the warmest in the instrumental record going back to 1850. Depending on which temperature records you use, 2010 was the warmest year on record for NOAA NCDC and NASA GISS, and the second warmest on record in HadCRUT3.”
Furthermore despite criticism of a paper published by the Met Office he chose not to ask us to respond to his misconceptions. The study in question, supported by many others, provides an insight into the sensitivity of our climate to changes in the output of the sun.
It confirmed that although solar output is likely to reduce over the next 90 years this will not substantially delay expected increases in global temperatures caused by greenhouse gases. The study found that the expected decrease in solar activity would only most likely cause a reduction in global temperatures of 0.08 °C. This compares to an expected warming of about 2.5 °C over the same period due to greenhouse gases (according to the IPCC’s B2 scenario for greenhouse gas emissions that does not involve efforts to mitigate emissions). In addition the study also showed that if solar output reduced below that seen in the Maunder Minimum – a period between 1645 and 1715 when solar activity was at its lowest observed level – the global temperature reduction would be 0.13C.”
So no, neither of the articles you linked to provide a significant challenge to the scientific consensus on man-made global warming.
Chris words like terrorist and psychopaths have no place in serious discussions about global warming. But the stupidity to make that kind of statement isn’t limited to this organization…progressive democrats are famous for this types of speech.
Therefore, I am not impressed by this as an argument against the scientific findings of the scientists and you shouldn’t be either. It’s the kind of crap the left always uses to change the conversation. The scientific findings are significant and should be seriously included in any discussion about what causes climate change and the degree to which man impacts climate change.
The most important aspect of the argument is that it is political. A lot of the science that supposedly proves man made global warming comes from grant seeking researchers who manipulated peer review to keep the dollars flowing. It has been used as a political football by Democrats seeking power, AL Gore being the number one political spreader of GW propaganda. When it didn’t get him elected president he moved on to making money by creating a carbon market company and proceeding to brain wash kids in our schools and through the entertainment industry. GW has been “sold,” not proven, on the basis of faulty, manipulated science and political consensus BS. It’s basically a redistribution scheme. The poor scientist who dared to speak a bit of truth that didn’t follow the MMGW line by rote, a man who dared speak some truth to the Daily Mail about his findings was probably slapped hard by those who have a money interest in keeping the man made global warming myth going. “Misrepresenting” is a catch all word; it doesn’t totally dismiss his findings it just gives the impression that what he found doesn’t count.
The campaign against oil, gas and coal is despicable in that it has been made political. The amount of Co2 that human activity contributes to the air we breath is miniscule and basically irrelevant. Natural forces cause most of it and thank God it does; nature seeks balance. Carbon is the basis of all life on earth; we breath carbon dioxide out when we exhale and green plants eat it up…part of the natural cycle of life. The man made aspect has been blown out of proportion and hyped to create guilt, campaign and special interest contributions and political will.
Calling this made up issue a crisis is political. Using this made up crisis as an excuse to force the oil, gas, and coal industries to pay higher taxes or spend large sums of money to meet unrealistic goals is political. Using this made up crisis as an excuse to impose higher taxes on individuals, i.e. cap and trade or UN taxes, is political! Using this made up “crisis” as a means to get democrats elected, or make the U.N. a global tax collector is political. Using the word consensus to sell the so-called crisis is political. The so-called crisis is a progressive political redistribution and centralized power scheme and an attack on all personal freedoms. Anyone who attempts to speak against the made-up crisis, even with scientific evidence is immediately attacked in an attempt to silence them…that is how freedom of speech is lost and the propaganda is spread.
Our readers can watch video of the speeches delivered by scientists who attended the seventh Heartland Institute sponsored conference by going here:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/iccc7/
A sampling of biograpies of those involved:
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/bob-caarter-iccc7/
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/howard-hayden-iccc7/
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/craig-idso-iccc7/
http://climateconferences.heartland.org/sebastian-luning-iccc7/
Tina: “The poor scientist who dared to speak a bit of truth that didn’t follow the MMGW line by rote, a man who dared speak some truth to the Daily Mail about his findings was probably slapped hard by those who have a money interest in keeping the man made global warming myth going. “Misrepresenting” is a catch all word; it doesn’t totally dismiss his findings it just gives the impression that what he found doesn’t count.”
I think one of us is misunderstanding something. Who is “he?” Which “scientist” are you talking about? It sounds like you are talking about the Daily Mail article you linked to earlier, but that article did not interview one scientist; it cited a study by a scientific organization, and the very organization it cited says that their findings were the *exact opposite* of what David Rose claims they were in his article.
“The amount of Co2 that human activity contributes to the air we breath is miniscule and basically irrelevant.”
The majority of scientists disagree, and the evidence seems to support them. Look at this chart showing unprecedented high levels of CO2 in the atmosphere:
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
While it’s true that CO2 produced by natural processes is also absorbed by natural processes, humans are currently producing more CO2 than out atmosphere can handle:
“The natural cycle adds and removes CO2 to keep a balance; humans add extra CO2 without removing any.
Before the industrial revolution, the CO2 content in the air remained quite steady for thousands of years. Natural CO2 is not static, however. It is generated by natural processes, and absorbed by others.
As you can see in Figure 1, natural land and ocean carbon remains roughly in balance and have done so for a long time – and we know this because we can measure historic levels of CO2 in the atmosphere both directly (in ice cores) and indirectly (through proxies).
But consider what happens when more CO2 is released from outside of the natural carbon cycle – by burning fossil fuels. Although our output of 29 gigatons of CO2 is tiny compared to the 750 gigatons moving through the carbon cycle each year, it adds up because the land and ocean cannot absorb all of the extra CO2. About 40% of this additional CO2 is absorbed. The rest remains in the atmosphere, and as a consequence, atmospheric CO2 is at its highest level in 15 to 20 million years (Tripati 2009). (A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years).
Human CO2 emissions upset the natural balance of the carbon cycle. Man-made CO2 in the atmosphere has increased by a third since the pre-industrial era, creating an artificial forcing of global temperatures which is warming the planet. While fossil-fuel derived CO2 is a very small component of the global carbon cycle, the extra CO2 is cumulative because the natural carbon exchange cannot absorb all the additional CO2.
The level of atmospheric CO2 is building up, the additional CO2 is being produced by burning fossil fuels, and that build up is accelerating.”
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
I think Heartland’s record shows them to be untrustworthy when it comes to science. If they’re willing to go against the facts about second-hand smoking to serve corporate interests, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t be willing to do the same when it comes to global warming.
Chris I guess the misunderstanding is mine. I don’t think the Daily Mail misrepresented the report, however. I think the report included something that represented a slip in the narrative and so of course, the report was “misrepresented”.
As I said this is a political issue and is being used to transfer wealth.
I offer for level-headed people everywhere the following article:
http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/environment/item/13919-new-report-man-made-global-warming-is-a-farce
(I also provide here the link to the actual report cited in the article). The pseudo-scientists at the last warming gad fest at Doha threw out this information and the man delivering it…that’s how dedicated they are to science. they are so certain they are right they can’t stand the thought of anyone presenting opposing evidence or opinion based on science.
Conservapedia has compiled a good deal of information and references:
http://www.conservapedia.com/Global_warming
Chris don’t bother telling me Lord Monckton and conservapedia have been discredited. We already know that anyone, even those with sterling credentials, are automatically discredited by the alarmists who always need a convenient crisis as a means of destroying industry and redistributing wealth.
I maintain the classroom is no place to sell exaggerated and manipulated science claims.
Tina: “Chris I guess the misunderstanding is mine. I don’t think the Daily Mail misrepresented the report, however. I think the report included something that represented a slip in the narrative and so of course, the report was “misrepresented”.”
Then you didn’t read the Met Office’s response. David Rose claimed that their study said the *exact opposite* of what it actually said. If that’s not misrepresentation, nothing is.
“Chris don’t bother telling me Lord Monckton and conservapedia have been discredited.”
Oh, I’m so glad you brought up “Lord” Monckton! The guy who has gotten a cease and desist letter from the House of Lords telling him to stop falsely claiming that he is a member of the House of Lords:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/jul/18/climate-monckton-member-house-lords
Monckton has also falsely claimed to be a Nobel prize winner:
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/lord-monckton-nobel-prize/
And contrary to your claims, Tina, he was not thrown out of the UN for providing opposing evidence or opinion against global warming. He was thrown out for impersonating a Burmese delegate(!):
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/dec/07/doha-climate-talks-ukip-lord-monckton
Monckton has no degree in science, has never published a peer reviewed study on any scientific issue, and frequently misrepresents scientific studies. Here is a handy PDF showing Monckton’s claims about scientific studies, vs. the response of the exact scientists he has inaccurately cited:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/docs/Monckton_vs_Scientists.pdf
So I hope I don’t have to bother telling you that Mr. Monckton has been discredited. His crazy antics and lies do enough to discredit him.
And I really don’t have to explain why Conservapedia is not a very reliable source, do I? The purpose is to give only one side of the story. It exists for confirmation bias, not information.
“I maintain the classroom is no place to sell exaggerated and manipulated science claims.”
The evidence for climate change is well-documented. Even if you disagree, don’t you believe students should learn about a theory that is supported by NASA, 98% of climate scientists, as well as every major scientific body in the world?
Chris I think you will be surprised when the new report from the IPCC comes out next year. WSJ article heads up:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323981504578179291222227104.html
I’d be delighted to get such a surprise. I don’t want global warming, obviously. I don’t want to deal with the catostrophic effects, and I don’t want to deal with the sacrifices we might have to make as a country to reverse those effects.
But as of now, I’m going where the evidence takes me. And as much as I’d like global warming to be a myth so I don’t really have to worry about it, I don’t think that’s the case. And I think it is irresponsible to ignore or dismiss the wealth of evidence and experts who argue that this is happening, and that we do need to do something before it’s too late.
I know…it’s so much easier to deal with the sacrifices when you don’t yet have to pay for them.
The wealth of evidence leads exactly nowhere, at least nowhere that is “dangerous”.
I would think that it would have dawned on you by now that this entire hoax is incredibly self-serving and arrogant…the idea that humans have such power to destroy against the enormous power and perfection of the universe…cracks me up:
I wonder what percentage could be attributed to the great blowhard Al Gore with all of his jet setting around just to sound, look, and feel important.
The “sacrifices” that people like the coal workers are having to endure because of this hoax are horrible and those who push this agenda without real scientific evidence of actual danger should be royally shamed.