Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Education news' started by RebellingforLife, Jan 3, 2019.
Yes, this is all true.
"Some 3,000 high school students from all corners of Brussels converged in the city on Thursday for an unauthorized protest to demand more concrete action to deal with climate change, local media reported."
In nouveaux science as supposedly taught in primary, children are supposed to do scientific investigations and come to their own conclusions / hypotheses about why. So why are they being spoon fed all this speculation about climate change when there is no scientific evidence that the short term variations in climate over the last 200 yrs will continue in the same direction or that we caused them ( not volcanoes, methane from decaying vegetation, solar activity, cosmic dust or magma flow? ). Every month some 'expert' points out that last week/month/year was the hottest/ coldest /driest / wettest / sunny / dullest / windy / polluted since records began. Ands its apparently ALL our fault and irreversible unless we DO something.
On the other hand there is the IPCC report
“With more than 6,000 scientific references cited and the dedicated contribution of thousands of expert and government reviewers worldwide, this important report testifies to the breadth and policy relevance of the IPCC,” said Hoesung Lee, Chair of the IPCC.
Where do these people come from? To claim there is no evidence for anthropogenic climate change is to go way beyond the realms of stupidity. How do people wilfully keep themselves so ignorant? And then seem proud of it.
I'm guessing you don't teach a STEM subject
Can’t we just all strike for better teaching lay and conditions? Strike for shekels n’sleep?
Scientific references do not make global warming a scientific fact. It is only a theory. They are interpreting data in a way that supports a theory but what is the reality of average temperatures rising by a few degrees ?. There will be more evaporation and the air will become saturated and hence more rainfall. Rain naturally scrubs carbon dioxide and sulphur dioxide from the air hence reducing the greenhouse effect. Has any scientific body mentioned or evaluated this to estimate the net result ? I doubt it because it might 'muddy the waters' and spoil their current evaluation of an urgent need to curb our use of fossil fuels. About 30 years ago expert scientific environmentalists declared the Crown of Thorns starfish had destroyed vast areas of coral reef that would never recover. Nature knew otherwise. The reefs slowly re-grew.
‘twill all be online!
Is it the student version of Ready To Learn, that sin bin room they had in ‘School’?
There may be more rainfall at higher temperatures, but the solubility of carbon dioxide decreases with temperature so the rain will "scrub" less if the temperature increases.
Sulphur dioxide does not have a significant global warming potential so is irrelevant. Care to confuse it with the hole in the ozone layer too?
I hope not.
I think you're getting confused between laws and theories. Yes it's a theory, just like evolution and relativity. The point of research is to find new information, not to try and prove a theory correct. When we get published data that questions a theory, we look at the theory and see if it needs changing to account for this.
The great thing about science is if you've got a better theory, that explains everything better in a rigorous way then you can share it and it'll replace the current theory.
(I realise I've simplified the process but you should get the right idea).
Methinks you forget the forests destroyed by acid rain generated from coal burning industries pumping sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. By the by, I am not completely convinced by historical evidence of carbon dioxide levels from air bubbles in ice cores when they are deposited thousands of miles from anything living and may have been affected by chemical or osmosis changes. I think you may also find that statistically scientists' theories are more often proved wrong ( and quietly forgotten about).
No, not forgotten, just don't see how that is relevant. Maybe I should include your full quote and clarify;
- increased sulphur dioxide levels do not increase the greenhouse effect directly.
Not completely... so slightly convinced? Or do you completely disregard the data?
How exactly does being thousands of miles away from interference make this evidence less reliable? What chemical changes do you propose may have affected the levels of carbon dioxide? What do you mean by an osmosis [sic] change? My biology's not as strong, but I thought osmosis was the process of water moving across a partially permeable membrane... how does this relate to carbon dioxide in an ice core?
So this is what you base it on, statistically, science has been wrong more than right, so global warming must be wrong?
And since when have we (science) quietly forgotten the wrong theories? Democritus's model of an atom, phlogiston theory, Newland's periodic table, contraction theory (before plate tectonics)… all theories I know to be proved wrong but haven't been forgotten.
You are using the word in its non-scientific sense.
Scientifically, theories are well-substantiated, well-supported, and well-documented explanations of what we see.
They are above Laws as they explain things more than merely describing them.
So, yes, Anthropogenic Climate Change is a theory. A very, very, good one that is better supported by more and more evidence every single day.
Australia is currently suffering a 45° heatwave, that will probably lead to raging forest fires in the near future.
A report published today revealed insects in a Puerto Rican forest have reduced by 98% over the last 35 years with knock on effects on lizard, bird and amphibian populations.
Venice is flooded
Land ice is disappearing fast increasing the likelihood of drought in the areas fed by the melt water.
The north pole ice cap is disappearing, the reflective properties of white ice are replaced by absorbing dark water leading to faster global warming.
Coral reefs are dying in warming and acidifying seas and will all be dead and gone in the near future.
Increasing numbers of fires worldwide, California burned at the end of last year and there were fires in the arctic circle.
Thawing permafrost released anthrax spores which were locked in the ice causing mass death of reindeer
the war in Syria can be attributed to the effects of climate breakdown.
There are plenty more examples if you search and there will be many more in 2019.
The philosophers amongst us might say that because it is almost the same argument used to confirm the existence of God. All I see is a confirmed cycle of ice age / tropical sunshine that had no relationship/correlation with the existence of human beings.
You didn't even know what a theory was earlier today.
You are right - because those stories are what drives the argument about how we should live which may or may not affect global warming. So why are there so many stupid people that have the power to make positive difference to our world but still: build houses on tidal flood plains, use potable water to flush toilets, have no plans to reverse desertification and allow car manufacturers to make cars designed for domestic purposes with 2l engines capable of going 150mph. Addressing all these things will help mitigate against some of the effects of global warming but they would rather pump money into projects like HS2 for the wealthy.