By Meteorologist Bill Smith
I recently came across an article in the quarterly journal American Educator: “Teaching Climate Change,” Vol 43, No. 4. The authors have an obvious agenda and are promoting propaganda. The article is alarmist and rife with statements that are simply not true. I found this sentence to be the most troubling:
“Given the scientific consensus on the cause of global warming and climate change, teachers should teach the scientifically accepted perspective on global warming and climate change – not debate it.”
Science does not work by consensus. Scientific findings are always being tested and up for debate. One investigator, with irrefutable evidence, can shatter consensus. It is accepted that the atmosphere is warming. However, scientists do not agree that it is entirely due to human activity, nor do they agree that it is warming at an alarming rate. The “97% Consensus” canard is a bogus statistic resulting from biased filtering and small sample sizes.
On the other hand, the article does encourage data collection and analysis. This is laudable and these activities demonstrate how the scientific method works. However, it will not demonstrate any changes in climate, local or otherwise, since that requires the analysis of 30 years of continuous data.
Students would be better served if they were taught critical thinking skills and encouraged to debate analytical results.
Categories: Uncategorized
Chris Martz 
did you post that article?…..am I missing it?
LikeLiked by 1 person
No, meteorologist Bill Smith did. He is a new contributor for my blog.
LikeLike
‘One investigator, with irrefutable evidence, can shatter consensus.’
ok, where is the irrefutable evidence?
‘However, scientists do not agree that it is entirely due to human activity, nor do they agree that it is warming at an alarming rate.’ Yes the current status of our knowledge is that around 80% of the warming since the onset of the industrial age is man made. So?
what rate would be alarming? At what rate can ecosystem no longer cope? At what rate can our agricultural practices no longer adapt fast enough?
LikeLike
Where is the irrefutable evidence for catastrophic climate change?
Actually, most of the warming is natural, not man-made and agricultural practices are doing well in terms of yield and increased carbon dioxide.
https://pocket.co/share/ea6a2fe2-777b-4a76-aa83-7b586a3afba5?utm_source=pocket_saves
https://pocket.co/share/75056e43-05df-4fca-94e7-ffd1769d016e?utm_source=pocket_saves
https://pocket.co/share/df0e25a4-e268-46b9-a3f0-a7605bf6e90e?utm_source=pocket_saves
https://pocket.co/share/75056e43-05df-4fca-94e7-ffd1769d016e?utm_source=pocket_saves
LikeLike
My understanding is that scientists think that we are on course for catastrophic climate change. Who is claiming it is happening today besides some journalists?
There is plenty of research showing global warming is causing heat stress to crops, drying soils and reducing yields too.
Not impressed by your links. It is best to link the actual papers directly rather than Ivan blogs that misinterpret, as is the case here. Don’t you read the actual quoted papers first? Some of the ‘papers’ you refer to are self published…..
can’t you find paper from the master list of journals supporting your position?
LikeLike
Genetic logical fallacy. There are thousands supporting my position and all you have are logical fallacies. The burden of proof is on the alarmists and they have nothing. There isn’t any consensus and consensus is not science.
https://pocket.co/share/75056e43-05df-4fca-94e7-ffd1769d016e?utm_source=pocket_reader
LikeLike
Most of the warming is natural? It’s not what the published science says.
What natural conditions have caused the warming since the beginning of the industrial age?
I cannot open your links.
There is more to consider than the direct impact of increased CO2: https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=2ca80dfb4d19709246e14e00ed2e308162f76c67
LikeLike
Try this: https://pocket.co/share/df0e25a4-e268-46b9-a3f0-a7605bf6e90e?utm_source=pocket_reader
LikeLike
Model output is not evidence. In fact, climate models are total crap!
https://pocket.co/share/d5b3533e-fa46-4519-8547-bad6e9e296e4?utm_source=pocket_reader
LikeLike
Nonsense! Climate models are rubbish and have not improved in 50 years. I should know, I have seen the code and there are a myriad of false assumptions. Dismissing an argument because it comes from a “blog” is a genetic logical fallacy. You posted an article from a “blog” that has an agenda, too. That makes you a hypocrite.
https://pocket.co/share/7133ad5e-12c5-47ae-9baf-0a835d438b50?utm_source=pocket_reader
https://pocket.co/share/d5b3533e-fa46-4519-8547-bad6e9e296e4?utm_source=pocket_reader
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/genetic
LikeLike