• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Miseducation: How Climate Change Is Taught in America

To be clear, there have been NO predictions of eminent climate catastrophe. There HAVE been predictions of the possibility of widespread "climate catastrophe" that would start around the 2nd half of the 21st century. Fifty years ago nobody expected them to start before 2050. What we are seeing now is only the very faint BEGINNING of the effects of climate change. But they are happening earlier than was expected.

Twenty years or so ago, these effects were reversible. Now they are not. But they CAN be mitigated. But for folks in third world countries a lot of famine. To them it will be closer to "doomsday" To developed nations like the U.S., destruction by weather-related events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires...) will increase. We don't know (and we have NEVER known) how bad the consequences will be. But whatever the consequences are, they will be more expensive to SOLVE than it would have been to prevent them. So, if we solve them (or, at this point, mitigate them), they will NEVER be "dire". If we don't, then things are going to get rough.

Fortunately the world (U.S. excluded for the next four years) is working hard to mitigate them. Let's hope they succeed. Because I don't think we'll be helping much in the next four years. So that when we DO rejoin the struggle, maybe the consequences won't be so dire.


That depends on where you live. To the farmers who lost their land to forest fires in California, to folks who lost their homes or businesses to tornadoes in the mid-west and to hurricanes in the south or to floods in coastal areas.... To them the "doomsday" scenario is already 100% accurate




I agree that that would be idiotic. But I don't know ANYBODY proposing that. I've only read about such "proposals" in science DENIALIST websites. No serious sources.


THAT is what rational people ARE proposing: find CHEAPER ways of fuel that contribute less to global warming.
When you have something that is valid that can be shown rather than speculated, please show us. The propaganda has worn thin.
 
To be clear, there have been NO predictions of eminent climate catastrophe. There HAVE been predictions of the possibility of widespread "climate catastrophe" that would start around the 2nd half of the 21st century. Fifty years ago nobody expected them to start before 2050. What we are seeing now is only the very faint BEGINNING of the effects of climate change. But they are happening earlier than was expected.

Twenty years or so ago, these effects were reversible. Now they are not. But they CAN be mitigated. But for folks in third world countries a lot of famine. To them it will be closer to "doomsday" To developed nations like the U.S., destruction by weather-related events (tornadoes, hurricanes, floods, wildfires...) will increase. We don't know (and we have NEVER known) how bad the consequences will be. But whatever the consequences are, they will be more expensive to SOLVE than it would have been to prevent them. So, if we solve them (or, at this point, mitigate them), they will NEVER be "dire". If we don't, then things are going to get rough.

Fortunately the world (U.S. excluded for the next four years) is working hard to mitigate them. Let's hope they succeed. Because I don't think we'll be helping much in the next four years. So that when we DO rejoin the struggle, maybe the consequences won't be so dire.


That depends on where you live. To the farmers who lost their land to forest fires in California, to folks who lost their homes or businesses to tornadoes in the mid-west and to hurricanes in the south or to floods in coastal areas.... To them the "doomsday" scenario is already 100% accurate




I agree that that would be idiotic. But I don't know ANYBODY proposing that. I've only read about such "proposals" in science DENIALIST websites. No serious sources.


THAT is what rational people ARE proposing: find CHEAPER ways of fuel that contribute less to global warming.
Who says the effects of the observed warming are irreversible, do you have a citation for that?

Mitigation implies that we know what is causing the climate to change!
Were added CO2 causing the climate to change, we would have to see added CO2 reducing the outgoing longwave radiation (OLR),
and this is not happening.
Observational Assessment of Changes in Earth’s Energy Imbalance Since 2000
The increase is the result of a 0.9 ± 0.3 Wm−2 increase absorbed solar radiation (ASR)
that is partially offset by a 0.4 ± 0.25 Wm−2 increase in outgoing longwave radiation (OLR).

While there is no empirical data that shows burning fuels made from oil contributes to climate change,
We still need a path to sustainable energy. Thankfully nature has evolved a very efficient energy storage
device called hydrocarbons. If we make fuels from CO2 harvested from the atmosphere, the resulting fuel
when burned is 100% carbon neutral. The real benefit is the ingredients to make the fuel are freely available to everyone.
 
When you have something that is valid that can be shown rather than speculated, please show us. The propaganda has worn thin.
I only have Science. If you believe that Science is "propaganda", I can't help you....
 
Who says the effects of the observed warming are irreversible, do you have a citation for that?
"Irreversible" in the sense that we can't stop them from happening. But we might be able to prevent the worst scenarios.

We're already seeing them. Mild ones in comparison, but...yes! The increased intensity in weather events we've been seeing are in part due to conditions created by AGW.

Mitigation implies that we know what is causing the climate to change!
Sure thing....

That's pretty much settled science. No need to waste too much time on it.

What we need now is to find ways to mitigate it. And to not make it WORSE.
 
"Irreversible" in the sense that we can't stop them from happening. But we might be able to prevent the worst scenarios.

We're already seeing them. Mild ones in comparison, but...yes! The increased intensity in weather events we've been seeing are in part due to conditions created by AGW.


Sure thing....

That's pretty much settled science. No need to waste too much time on it.

What we need now is to find ways to mitigate it. And to not make it WORSE.
We could never stop the climate from changing that was always hubris.
No the concept that added CO2 causes warming is not settled, it was only ever a hypothesis, never a theory.
Your Namesake Feynman had a saying about theories.
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
That is where we are with the concept that added CO2 causes warming.
The concept that the warming would be caused by added CO2 blocking the exiting longwave radiation, and reducing the
Outgoing longwave radiation (OLR). The experiment was the CERES instruments put up on satellites.
The results are the theory does not agree with the experiment!
 
During the covid lockdown did lots of reading and one of the books that I found interesting (and eye opening) is "Miseducation"


That book has been on my mind ever since I read it. I thought about it for a while so put together a two-part Doodly. It outlines the science I believe teachers should be teaching their students. The Doodly starts with the combustion process and walks through the data. It shows why the daily global consumption of over 100 million barrels of oil, burned each day, is reflected in the Keeling curve. Furthermore, incorporated Milankovitch orbital variations that indicate decreasing solar intensity, which suggests the Earth's climate should be cooling. Given this, the only thing that makes sense to me is that humanity is causing an unprecedented global climate change event.

So any climate change skeptics care to share where they think I'm not presenting solid science (in the following videos posted on YouTube)




There are few climate change skeptics. The issue is how fast it is occurring and what effects it's going to have.
 
We could never stop the climate from changing that was always hubris.
We couldn't. But only for political reasons.

As for the rest, there are thousands of peer-reviewed studies. If you wish to contradict any of the finding in the Scientific Consensus, you would need to start by simply providing the quote from the conclusion and a link to a peer-reviewed study. Attention: PEER-REVIEWED is the keyword here. Because peer-review is how modern science WORKS. It just doesn't work any other way.

And just in case you want to check WHAT the Scientific Consensus is (and isn't), you can use this link.
 
And so you wasted your time typing all that crap and I'm not reading it.
I know you don't read. It's precisely the reason why you don't know much. But that was intended for SMART people. And some of them have already made smart comments. I was just using your post to introduce it. It's an ignorant misconception and you a re the PERFECT source of ignorant misconceptions.
 
We couldn't. But only for political reasons.

As for the rest, there are thousands of peer-reviewed studies. If you wish to contradict any of the finding in the Scientific Consensus, you would need to start by simply providing the quote from the conclusion and a link to a peer-reviewed study. Attention: PEER-REVIEWED is the keyword here. Because peer-review is how modern science WORKS. It just doesn't work any other way.

And just in case you want to check WHAT the Scientific Consensus is (and isn't), you can use this link.
It’s physics not politics!
Had you bothered to read many thousands of peer reviewed studies, you would have seen that most
of them are IF THEN studies, IF the climate sensitivity is as claimed, THEN...
Very few studies attempt to show how climate sensitivity is arrived at.
The early studies of the greenhouse effect, mostly verified that CO2 can absorb in the longwave spectrum.
Also My link in Post #27 was to a peer reviewed study reporting the data from the CERES instruments on satellites,
The findings were that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, as OLR is increasing.
Our energy imbalance is coming from the shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR), a portion of the
spectrum CO2 does not affect.
To date there are no Peer Reviewed published studies that empirically link added CO2 to observed warming,
it is a a hypothesis, and a failing one at that.

By the way the idea that global dimming and brightening is causing our warming since 1978 is in agreement with the
scientific consensus. I will quote you!
that there is an abnormal increase in the Earth's surface temperature. And that increase is caused mainly by human activity.
Adding air pollution and then removing that air pollution is a Human activity!
 
Last edited:
It’s physics not politics!
Had you bothered to read many thousands of peer reviewed studies, you would have seen that most
of them are IF THEN studies, IF the climate sensitivity is as claimed, THEN...
Very few studies attempt to show how climate sensitivity is arrived at.
The early studies of the greenhouse effect, mostly verified that CO2 can absorb in the longwave spectrum.
Also My link in Post #27 was to a peer reviewed study reporting the data from the CERES instruments on satellites,
The findings were that Earth is loosing energy in the longwave spectrum, as OLR is increasing.
Our energy imbalance is coming from the shortwave Absorbed Solar Radiation (ASR), a portion of the
spectrum CO2 does not affect.
To date there are no Peer Reviewed published studies that empirically link added CO2 to observed warming,
it is a a hypothesis, and a failing one at that.

By the way the idea that global dimming and brightening is causing our warming since 1978 is in agreement with the
scientific consensus. I will quote you!

Adding air pollution and then removing that air pollution is a Human activity!
I guess since these sheople to the climate cult never read peer reviewed papers, they never see how many times many papers has the phrase "if we assume...." in it. Such papers are gold for the lying activists. They will claim the paper said something as fact, based on an assumptive value.
 
I know you don't read.
Particularly nonsense you've said over and over again.
It's precisely the reason why you don't know much. But that was intended for SMART people. And some of them have already made smart comments. I was just using your post to introduce it. It's an ignorant misconception and you a re the PERFECT source of ignorant misconceptions.
I'm not bothered by your opinion.
 
There are few climate change skeptics. The issue is how fast it is occurring and what effects it's going to have.

Perhaps "There are few climate change skeptics" but everyone should be aware that there are some that have a great influence AND are at the controls (trump for example)



Also, one has to consider the unfortunate fact that the education system, for the most part, has failed to enlighten students about the actual science of climate change. This is because social justice warriors have been focused on pushing their DEI 'environmental justice' political agenda.



The end result is few that go through the education system actually learn the specific science which is applicable to understanding why climate change can be shown to be caused by man kind,...



BTW noticed you placed your location is "San Diego"

Point this out because UCSD and SIO (scripps institute of oceanography) have a long history of specifically researching "climate science"

Anyway just happened to take a seminar class where the guy who essentially started UCSD


...introduced under grads to various noted researchers (so they could interact one on one), anyway used that opportunity to find out why scientist were concerned about green house gas emissions,... what you might find interesting is Revelle way back in 1957 wrote a published paper that said

"...human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate."

 
Last edited:
Perhaps "There are few climate change skeptics" but everyone should be aware that there are some that have a great influence AND are at the controls (trump for example)


Yes, we agree the climate is "influenced" by our activity. So what.
Also, one has to consider the unfortunate fact that the education system, for the most part, has failed to enlighten students about the actual science of climate change. This is because social justice warriors have been focused on pushing their DEI 'environmental justice' political agenda.


Yes, the agenda is taught. Not real science.
The end result is few that go through the education system actually learn the specific science which is applicable to understanding why climate change can be shown to be caused by man kind,...


Yes, some scientists are convinced. Not enough to matter.

You have to keep in mind what you do not want to believe. Only a small handful of scientists think our greenhouse gas emissions may be a problem. The pundits lie about what the papers say.
BTW noticed you placed your location is "San Diego"

Point this out because UCSD and SIO (scripps institute of oceanography) have a long history of specifically researching "climate science"

Anyway just happened to take a seminar class where the guy who essentially started UCSD


...introduced under grads to various noted researchers (so they could interact one on one), anyway used that opportunity to find out why scientist were concerned about green house gas emissions,... what you might find interesting is Revelle way back in 1957 wrote a published paper that said

"...human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate."

Yet nobody has provided any acceptable proof that more CO2 is a problem. The only proof we have regarding more CO2, is the biosphere thrives better with more.

So if you are concerned with the earth like I am, then understand this is more important than a little inconvenience for us. We will adapt if it does pose a problem to us.
 
Perhaps "There are few climate change skeptics" but everyone should be aware that there are some that have a great influence AND are at the controls (trump for example)



Also, one has to consider the unfortunate fact that the education system, for the most part, has failed to enlighten students about the actual science of climate change. This is because social justice warriors have been focused on pushing their DEI 'environmental justice' political agenda.



The end result is few that go through the education system actually learn the specific science which is applicable to understanding why climate change can be shown to be caused by man kind,...



BTW noticed you placed your location is "San Diego"

Point this out because UCSD and SIO (scripps institute of oceanography) have a long history of specifically researching "climate science"

Anyway just happened to take a seminar class where the guy who essentially started UCSD


...introduced under grads to various noted researchers (so they could interact one on one), anyway used that opportunity to find out why scientist were concerned about green house gas emissions,... what you might find interesting is Revelle way back in 1957 wrote a published paper that said

"...human beings are now carrying out a large scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate."


Trump has little to do with the issue - the discussion/debate has been going on since, at least, the mid-1990's. As has the "appeal to authority"; only the climate alarmists selected "authorities" of course. Have you reviewed the plethora of failed predictions those authorities have put forth? Maybe this time they'll be right, huh?
 
Only a small handful of scientists think our greenhouse gas emissions may be a problem.
Thousands of universities and research groups, their thousands of papers and studies, and hundreds of thousands of scientists.
The only proof we have regarding more CO2, is the biosphere thrives better with more.
There is no proof. We only have belief that the biosphere thrives better.
 
Thousands of universities and research groups, their thousands of papers and studies, and hundreds of thousands of scientists.

There is no proof. We only have belief that the biosphere thrives better.
Actually the vast majority of studies are IF Then studies, and assume that added CO2 causes the levels of warming the IPCC
predicts. There are almost zero studies that ask IF added CO2 actually causes warming, it is assumed.
I was reading another study this morning, and hopeful they might have a valid methodology.
Greenhouse Gas Forcing and Climate Feedback Signatures Identified in Hyperspectral Infrared Satellite Observations
At least they admit that there is limited empirical evidence that greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks
are primary causes of climate change.
Global greenhouse gas forcing and feedbacks are the primary causes of climate change but have limited direct observations.
and
Anthropogenic emissions of well-mixed greenhouse gases (WMGHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O, CFCs, HFCs) result in the reduction of emission of infrared radiation to space, termed longwave radiative forcing (e.g., Ramaswamy et al., 2019). This forcing has only been inferred from climate models or radiative transfer models (e.g., Kramer et al., 2021; Raghuraman et al., 2019, 2021).
I was hopeful until I read this line.
During this period, CO2, CH4, and N2O increased by 40 ppm, 118 ppb, and 17 ppb, respectively (gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/). Since each gas absorbs and emits infrared radiation at specific wavelengths, AIRS can track the resulting increase in absorption by each gas separately (Goody et al., 1998).
The problem is that while CO2 has very specific absorption lines, it almost never emits anything, but passes it's energy
off via vibrational transfer. i.e they can measure the absorption, but have no way to know the wavelength of the
resulting vibrational transfer. (Only that it will contain equal or less energy than the absorbed photon)
 
Thousands of universities and research groups, their thousands of papers and studies, and hundreds of thousands of scientists.
Propaganda. All, if not almost all agree we have an effect. Saying it is a problem is agenda driven, and not real science.
There is no proof. We only have belief that the biosphere thrives better.
Nope. This is universally accepted by scientific research and measurable, that the biosphere thrives more with more CO2.
 
There is a hypothesis that added CO2 will increase Earth's energy imbalance, and force warming.
This hypothesis has been around for over a century, but no one has found a way to test it.


Sadly ideology,



which is trying to rewrite history AND is blind to the fact that people collectively do indeed have the capacity to adversely affect the global climate, as discussed in "PROLOGUE: The Unfolding Storm, What's The Purpose Of Education"



means civilization as we know it is in trouble.
 
Last edited:

Sadly ideology,



which is trying to rewrite history AND is blind to the fact that people collectively do indeed have the capacity to adversely affect the global climate, as discussed in "PROLOGUE: The Unfolding Storm, What's The Purpose Of Education"



means civilization as we know it is in trouble.

We have already discussed the Feldman study, it only could measure half of the data. To identify longwave energy imbalance would require seeing both the surface increase combined with a OLR decrease.
 
That's a fraudulent graph. The seasonal temperatures vary tremendous from summer to summer, and the greenhouse effect returns a percentage of the upward IR. The forcing changes should be far more dramatic than shown. that looks like a modelling of the global average rather than two individual locations. Someone is committing fraud here.

Here is the actual study:

 
We have already discussed the Feldman study, it only could measure half of the data. To identify longwave energy imbalance would require seeing both the surface increase combined with a OLR decrease.
Yep. The seasonal changes will generate that approximation as an anomaly, and the math fits for the downward forcing to follow the temperature changes and associated upward IR, changing from the seasonal temperatures.

I see no place in the study where they are comparing upward longwave with downward longwave.
 
It is impossible to open the minds of the climate cultists.
Manmade Climate Change fear is a political tool, not science

German climatologist Professor Dr. Horst-Joachim Lüdecke recently took data from two independent studies and superimposed them.
The result shows the long-claimed atmospheric CO2-global temperature correlation doesn’t exist.
The first data set was global temperature anomaly going back 600 million years, taken from the results of a paper by Came and Veizer, appearing in Nature (2007) and plotted below (blue):





The Washington post accidentally showed that the earth is actually cooling
1751656615936.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom