Very true, and that is how science reached conlusions about evolution and climate change.

Precisely. But why are you picking on evolution and climatology when you don't seem to be "questioning" things like gravitational theory, the germ theory of disease, the theory of relativity, etc., etc.?

Having an open mind is a good thing, but not so open that your brain falls out.

Here's an idea: Every year we'll do a survey of the last 10 years of the science journals for all the various subjects we're going to teach in science classes. We'll divvy up the time spent based upon the number of articles found for each viewpoint. Thus, if it turns out that 10% of the articles on biological diversity involve "intelligent design" and its processes and experimental evidence, then we'll spend 10% of the time in biology class that talks about diversity on ID. Same with climatology. Whatever percentage we can find in the peer reviewed journals that claims that the geoclimate isn't changing and/or that it isn't being driven by human factors, then that's the amount of time we'll spend on it.

After all, if there really is a controversy, if it really is true that "more and more scientists are coming to question" such things, then surely it would be all over the journals and we'd be derelict in our duty to bring that up in class.

I have yet to meet any denier who would accept that, however, pretty much because there aren't any such articles to be found. For all the insistence that the evidence is "inconclusive," that "more and more scientists are coming to question" such things, we never seem to be able to find them publishing their data.

Science questions everything, but only so far as the data tell it to. When all the data point in one direction, it is the antithesis of science to deny it.

And the problem with that idea, is, who picks the journals? Who decides that a journal is a science journal. Also what does "involve" mean,as in involves "intelligent design"? Do you include articles that mention it in any way, or just articles that are proponents? If you just include articles that are proponents, in what most scientists would consider "real science journals" than my guess is that of all the theories mentioned (except possible for global warming) you would be looking at less than a 10th of one percent.

Journals which provide peer review - the article and study and findings in question are sent out to dozens of scientists working in the same area who double check it for accuracy, consistancy of methodology, reliablity of methodology and so on.

Those are journals that can be generally trusted to publish articles that accurately reflect the BEST science URRENTLY available in a given field.

Oh, and for general info, the Science Friday edition of Talk of the Nation will be doing a segment on this topic tomorrow, Jan 20.

@Brian P. Evans -> #1.2, RE:

... After all, if there really is a controversy, if it really is true that "more and more scientists are coming to question" such things, then surely it would be all over the journals and we'd be derelict in our duty to bring that up in class....

Exactly! Brian, that is the crucial distinction that should be intrinsic to any discussion by school boards where the subject matter is scientifically grounded. Anyone who would attempt include as part of school curricula that human impact on the carbon footprint either does not or cannot have an impact on global warming should be required to provide valid scientific support to justify such inclusion. Otherwise such modification to the curricula, as science, cannot be justified. Moreover, if such unsupportable positions as that human activity has no impact on global warming, Creation Science, and its modernized version, Intelligent Design, are to reach the classroom in any justifiable manner, it can only be with the provision that such topics are pseudo-science at best and why. Perhaps, in conjunction with critical thinking (analysis), by distinguishing between what any topic that purports to be science by definition has to have at least one testable hypothesis, such that it is possible for experiments to be undertaken such that no part of the results contradict any proposition that is part of the hypothesis, and that any experiment done to test the hypothesis which doesn't contradict that hypothesis will instead act towards being confirmatory. Additionally, as part of critically analyzing theories, explain the difference between good science, bad science, and not even science, when it comes to teaching the Scientific Method.

The only part of the Global Warming topic which is really open for discussion is how much of an impact we humans have (the level of detail here, of course, must be dependent upon the school level involved [i.e., elementary, high school, or university (including post-grad), and it would only be at the university level where questions about public policy should be taught, primarily with the intent of determining the cost-benefit calculations for the various different policies), and how much of an impact when compared with the threshold that would implicate that said impact will provide positive feedback to the global warming/cooling cycle such that an equilibrium shift that is unfavorable to the health of the myriad ecosystems we humans are coexistent & co-dependent with. And, if we are in the danger zone, then we need to know what we humans must do to slow down and reverse directions on the road to disaster so that we can either avoid an equilibrium shift or minimize the extent of the equilibrium shift such that the human impact on the feedback loop stays negative or becomes negative.

CosmicChuck - well said; A+1

Heartland Institute is a joke! Their arguments against evolution or climate change (again just an evolution) are as puerile as folks claiming the world is flat because the horizon is horizontal and not curved. Being inquisitive is the heart of science, but being illogical is not.

We can now directly observe that the earth is not flat. We can NOT observe the future impacts of climate change. We have reasonable interpretations of what the current evidence might lead to. Same for evolution. Its a reasonable interpretation of the current evidence-- but we'll never be able to observe what happened in the past. Personally, they had me when the indian cried. At this point, I"m more concerned that we're wasting efforts on solutions that dont seem very likely to do anything except give govt more power over our lives.

Peanut, just because we weren't there in the past it didn't happen or can't be explained? Your absolutely laughable and extremely ignorant. You should at least try and learn more about climate change and evolution before opening your mouth.

Peanut, anybody who ever saw a boat sale out to sea could see the earth curved AWAY from and BELOW the observer (the anscient Greeks first noted this) That didn't stop most people from still believing in a flat earth.

No it's not a "Theory". It's a fact given actual observation of it being round.

(psst - Greg - StrontiDog is being artfully sarcastic, which is sometimes difficult to grok in a short written post. SD is OK in my book.)

Opps sorry. BTW I enjoy reading your posts Michael.

Ditto back at you, sir!

i disagree, i think all theories should be introduced, not really giving any sway to one over the other. i mean its easily said "the current scientifically accepted theory is..." but too many of our kids arent given the knowlege of the difference from theories and fact. just as within the evolution community there are many breakaway theories of different aspects of evolution, and not all scientists accept all theories. no, i dont believe that belief in god should be taught in schools, thats between families and personal choices, but i do believe that all information should be given, and yes that would include all dominant theories thru the ages, not just the judeo-christian viewpoint.

Or if ID is discussed in a science class, it should be presented as an example of a failed non-theory, with an explanation of why it so totally fails as a scientific theory.

So how would you go about teaching "intelligent design"? There's reasonable evidence supporting climate change, are they supposed to reference the Virgin Mary's birth of Jesus Christ as intelligent design?

Get real. If people want to learn about that, they can go to Church. That's not SCIENCE.

Re-labeling creationism and calling it Intelligent Design. Some schools have tried this and it failed. I suppose you could send your kids to a private school if you really wanted them to learn this theory. Believing ID means believing in a creator. Believing in a creator is completely faith based. Having faith in a creator should be discussed in a theology class. Fact based science---- science class.

Intelligent Design/Creationism is not a scientific theory and should not be given equal treatment in schools.

Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena, and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable, to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Drezz, then they should not forget to teach; it is also theorized that extra terrestrials might had been misinterpreted as gods, and that they were the ones who had altered our dna - so we might be a result of the combination of evolution & e.t.'s intelligent design...

People tend to want the class to "learn" what they believe. Thus teaching ID should be all about "what happened before the big bang, that science is just a piece of GOD, that God wants us to learn science (and so much more!)"

Of course, this is what I might believe... However, the curriculum must NOT be cluttered with the two opposites of creationism, the Bible (or other religious stories) and advanced cosmology, whole different fields!

well i never said teach the belief in these different theories, im saying tell kids this is what many people believe, while giving the emphasis of "this is what the most current scientifcally accepted belief is" its a fine line i know, but i believe kids should be given all info. even in scientific reasearch, the most preposterous of information must be given credence even if only for a minute, u weigh it against the evidence, it doesnt pass the mustard, throw it out and move on, but u still have to examine it to be thorough, anything less and you run the risk of your findings being biased.

Drezz, I fully agree that students should be given the scientific evidence and learn how to figure out for themselves why we think evolution is the right answer. Science is a process, and it is more important to learn the process than it is the resulting facts. It is, essentially, learning how to think.

However, when the fundamentalists say to "teach the controversy," what they really mean is they want to present Genesis and evolution as two equally supported scientific theories, which would of course be a lie. (Actually they don't want to mention evolution at all, but they know they can't get away with that officially, even though many schools do it in practice)

"this is what the most current scientifcally accepted belief evidence is"

Fixed that for you.

Wow Drezz you really aren't listening to what we are saying. You do NOT teach ID in a science setting. Re-read the comments and think about why.

I kinda like JimCA's idea: teach ID as a theory, but show why it is a failed theory: no evidence, based on a supposition (not observation), and that this is how science is NOT done. It's an elegant solution.

No, you teach ID as a failed hypothesis. ID is nowhere near a theory.

sorry greg ur not listening to what im saying. ID is nothing more than part of the history of where science comes from, its wrapped up in all the early stuff people believed, flat earth, universe revolved around earth, heaven was just above the clouds and hell was below the ground, all things that science has since proven as wrong. Previous conclusions and failed hypothesis should never be hidden from people because of fear of where it will lead. it is a footnote in the history of science that shouldnt be ignored.

Sorry drizz, ID is not a "Theory". It's a sneaky attempt at religion to wrap their myths in a way to make it look like a scientific approach. Yes I would give it 2 minutes of exposure so the and see it for what it is.

Theory - noun - a coherent group of tested general propositions, commonly regarded as correct, that can be used as principles of explanation and prediction for a class of phenomena. (taken from the english dictionary)

Now for thousands of years this was the norm, in the minds of all people involved, ID was a coherent idea, tested by faith, experience, and supposed "miracles", and was regarded as correct, and to them explained everything. Now if the theory has since been disproved, it becomes a failed hypothesis. However as far as history goes, it falls within the definition of theory.

Now in my experience people that are so adamant about erasing history are the ones who feel that they have a personal stake in the outcome. When applied to religious history, its usually those who have been deeply hurt by religion's misuse, or those who just dont want to let go of their hatred and animosity for whatever reason.

I myself am not a religious person, nor am i an atheist. However i see middle ground that those with a personal stake in it arent willing to see.

TReed

Just wanted to say I enjoy reading your comments in the Space and Science sections. Unfortunately it seems that more and more comments from people like you are having to fend off religious/right-wing nuts instead getting your thoughts on the article. Very sad. Anyway keep up the good work!

It's not "my scientists vs. your scientists', it is 97% of all climate scientists say that climate change is real, that it is happening now, and that our spewing of gigatonnes of greenhouse gases are to blame.

97%.

By the way, please stop peeing in my lake.

That's just wrong GammonBill. All would agree that global climate change is real and the Earth does go through a cycle of this, however the greater, and I strongly emphasize this, majority have scientific evidence correlating the rise of green house gases via advancing technology (cars) with climate change.

There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt that climate change is far more drastic now than in ancient Roman/Greek times. Considering that was only a few thousand years ago, which is almost nothing in the lifespan of the Earth, how can you possibly argue that we aren't the major contributing factor? We've changed a lot more than the Earth naturally has.

GammonBill you are absolutely correct. While man does effect the climate (and always has because we are part of nature), we are NOT a significant cause.

Michael - are those the same 97% that used what has been determined to be 'cooked' data.

Alex Le - How can we POSSIBLY know what the climate was in Roman/Greek times. Thermometers weren't invented; there was no Scientific Method so everything from that age was antidotal.

Is there climate change – yes. There always has been and always will be because the Earth is a dynamic system – nothing ever stays the same.

To use this constant changing to create policy is insane. A true case of the tail trying to wag the dog.

How can we POSSIBLY know what the climate was in Roman/Greek times. Thermometers weren't invented; there was no Scientific Method so everything from that age was antidotal.

This IS true, HOWEVER, at the tops of mountains, and in poles, there is OLD ICE. Within that ice, are pockets of ancient air. That air can be extracted, and the makeup of the atmosphere at that time can be determine. THIS IS SCIENCE. And your ignorance of it will be your own undoing.

Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't so.

are those the same 97% that used what has been determined to be 'cooked' data.

NO ONE used 'cooked data,' (I can only assume you meant 'climate-gate') that was a misunderstanding on the part of the anti-science crowd (aka flat-Earthers, aka climate-deniers). The data has never been inaccurate, just some folks understanding of it (same as now).

Wrong. The planet is a finite resource. It might seem big, but it's really a small closed system, everything is connected. The activities of 5 Billion + humans are significant and do have a significant impact - that's just plain common sense.

Change the "solution" to XSCO2

Accept that we can do that!

And pray that the scientific truth need not be an inhibitor towards spiritual growth. Pray that clean energies on a vast scale is finally developed to provide power and prosperity towards the future (which has already been past up in the name of profits).

I side with proponents on the science, with deniers on the politics, with closed cycle nuclear on the energy, and with robotically mass produced solar on the economics (to enable massive install jobs).

Climate change is real. I live in the previously glaciated part of Ohio. There is also, absolutely no doubt that 7+ billion people are each affecting the planet. A little really adds up when it gets into the billions. Personally, I'm in favor of a warmer climate, but change is difficult for plants and animals that are already under extreme stress from too many people. Other creatures (Nile monitor lizards come to mind.) will be able to benefit. Rationally, we need to slow our population growth and gradually move away from coal. (Coal is just plain nasty. The ash from coal plants, because of trace amounts of thorium & uranium in the coal, is more radioactive than low level nuclear waste!) http://www.epa.gov/radtown/coal-plant.html and http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=coal-ash-is-more-radioactive-than-nuclear-waste

Disbelieving climate change is significantly impacted by humans is being willfully ignorant. That stated, what is the appropriate response to climate change?

We need better models that will estimate the economic, disease, rainfall and weather disruptions caused by climate change in order to determine an appropriate response.

Generally, biodiversity and overall biomass on our planet increases as average temperatures warm. Maybe our response shouldn't be knee jerk, but rather recognition of the impacts and planning accordingly.

For example, setting up reparations for low lying countries, dike and waterway infrastructure, shifting farmland where necessary, etc. Tie these costs to the production of CO2 in order to internalize the costs of an industry. This will incentives CO2 reduction where possible, and prepare us for a changing world.

Good response The Evil to The gute except you missed on of his stupid comments "While man does effect the climate (and always has because we are part of nature)". Sorry man hasn't been around since the planet was created. Bet you think the earth is only 6,000 years old too? Dimwit.

Alex Le - How can we POSSIBLY know what the climate was in Roman/Greek times. Thermometers weren't invented; there was no Scientific Method so everything from that age was antidotal.

Do you mean "anecdotal"? (Fred Evil already responded to what else was wrong with your post.)

I liken it to this, if ONE ant goes against a bull, who wins? Simple, the bull does, the ant has NO effect.

But put together 6,000,000,000 Army Ants against one bull, who wins?

Sorry, but the bull@!$%# stops there.

The only reason politics is involved is because of the deniers. From what you said you don't believe it because it don't understand the science behind climatology. I don't profess to understand it complete either but I would like to think that with the level of education and years of experiece I would give them some weight. Biased computer models? Really? Maybe you might what to bone up on math and Fortran and write your own models.

Where is the repeatable experimental evidence? Where is the control group? It isn't science until anyone can replicate your experimental results. Until then it is merely a hypothesis.

Global warming is experienced fact. For the last 12,000 years as the last glaciation has retreated, the Earth has warmed. We can't be sure why this has happened. We have hypotheses, but we can't call any of them scientific theory until we can experimentally replicate what theory predicts. But we can rule out some things. We can for sure rule out SUVs and coal fired power plants, because they didn't exist during 11,900 years of the warming.

Anything we can do to reduce the billions of TONS of carbon dioxide and methane that we dump into the atmosphere every year will help.

If we caused it, surely, in this more advance age, we could stop it. But the love of money is the root to the next XSCO2 caused mass extinction...

That "anything" should be closed cycle nuclear (NOT current water reactors!) and robotically mass produced solar and batteries (to enable low enough prices for massive installs).

No the root of the problem is billions of people. It might be too late. We can soften the impact,but to answer Wally's comment about what can we do? Easy: keep your pants on! India and other countries need to educate and provide incentives to keep your pants on.

Von, this organization and all other scientists know that the climate has changed before, naturally. The question at hand is whther we can affect it ALSO.

Wow, where to begin. Indeed, ice ages are cyclical. You seem to think that people who have spent their entire careers studying climate seem to have forgotten their basic training. The reason they conclude that the climate is changing due to human-caused factors is because the cyclical events cannot account for the amount of change that we see.

And you clearly haven't bothered to read The Origin of Species. Even Darwin explained how the eye evolved. In fact, it appears that vision evolved not just once but rather 40 separate times.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html

Read up on it.

I see day in and day out dozens of VonSnickles. They lack some of the basic understanding of science and terms (like"Theory" at number one on the list), but come in to a Space and Science article and spout off like what they are saying is the absolute truth and the scienctist "haven't thought about this or that". What an insult. If they could only see the depth of stupidity in there posts.

the shuttle would burst into God's living room.

You don't wanna do that - I hear God does some pretty kinky things with goats and kine in private!

He does have this fitish with winky skins.

Agricultural/industrial/waste/sewage runoff. Something about green paper > clean drinking water. However, I'm sure there are people thinking on it. It won't be long before we might have to depend on less quality water to get by after all.

The solutions have not been implemented because Greedy small minded people have way too much money to make in the old system and are very afraid of change.

If you can't show them a way for them personally to get rich, or richer ,they won't go there because they are making money by the BOATLOAD.

"we somehow don't want to believe that the deniers could be very well RIGHT about proposed unfair and economically disastrous energy taxation."

I give them credit. I believe some form of economic disaster could occur, but.... What the hell good will money do you when your kill the planet your living on!!!!!!! It's all about money to them. Very myopic and selfish view.

Sorry I didn't read the rest of your comment after reading that.

There is no danger of "killing the planet". Even if we put our minds to it, we don't yet have the capability to kill the planet. The amount of energy required would approach the entire output of our star. If we can figure out how to make stars go nova on demand, then we might have a chance of "killing the planet". Planets are notoriously hard to kill. They are so large and robust.

Only certain types of stars go Super Nova and ours isn't in that category. Also the closes start Beteguese is going super nova sometime in the next 10000 year but it will only create the effect of 2 suns for use for a week.

Not literally. I should have said removing our species and many others with us. At the very least we will reduce the human population because of what we are doing to it. I expect in a hundred years you will not be able to see some of the things we take for granted now.

Yes we can. Take a biology course.

The two theories reinforce each other and both can be discussed simutaneously.

well somebody had to do it ..all the gods back them were being burnt to the ground so they made up one that couldnt be burnt or stolen

Sounds like your pleading for a ban from the forum. I will try and help you.

@barnyfife, RE:

Man-made climate change is just another "sky is falling" hoax....

"Man-made climate change," per se, would in fact be claiming that mankind has more impact on climate than the data suggests, that mankind might even be able to control climate, for which all the droughts, floods and other undesirable climatic events are all too obvious counterexamples indicating that mankind has a minuscule amount of control over the climate, at most (e.g., seeding clouds to generate rain can work, but not always).

However, that is not what is being debated between those who have done scientific research on climate change (and those who are informed by those researchers) and the anti-intellectuals who would be at home in The Flat Earth Society, with regard to whether the actions of mankind have any influence on climate change. The science on global warming, on the cycles between warmer and cooler temperatures, the effect that the ratio between CO2 & O2 in the atmosphere has are all fairly well understood by the scientific community. What's primarily at issue is the extent to which mankind has affected the Carbon Footprint (as well as other greenhouse gases) and how much the additional greenhouse gases will cause an otherwise unexpected increase in latent heat and concomitant causal relations with melting glaciers, increasing sea levels, extreme meteorological events, and modification of the warming/cooling cycles.

So, it's not man-made climate change as you ridiculed that's at issue barnyfife, it's the fact that the activities of mankind have a well-established causal link with climate change and that the causal link is not negligible. And, anyone who would try to have our children taught that mankind has absolutely no impact on global warming or climate change is a danger to the students they would want to be taught something that is a demonstrable lie, on such an important issue. More than that, however, they would be potential dangers to the health of the ecosystems which our descendants will be living in if the influence that mankind's activities have on changing the feedback loops that modulate the climatic cycles, and the very real possibility that our impact could be sufficient to induce an equilibrium shift on those climatic cycles that would entail adversarial changes to the ecosystems we are dependent upon for survival.

To the best of my knowledge, from the experts on climate change, who are part of the scientific community, mankind's impact on the carbon footprint is dangerously close to causing irreversible damage in the future, if we don't get serious about reducing the carbon footprint so as to let sufficient heat escape from the Earth's atmosphere to ameliorate the extent of climate change in the next 50 to 100 years.

@Ben Birdsey, RE:

In fact the science of climate change is very controversial among the general populace.

Probably the most substantial reason for this controversy in the general populace is due to the self-serving tactics by people who are part of Corporate America, beholden to Corporate America, or paid by Corporate America to cast doubt on the soundness or validity on the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change do agree that mankind has an undeniable impact on climate change, as confirmed by what Kuatomonk posted in #21.

I find it not merely disgusting, but socially irresponsible, that personal and/or corporate greed would lead to that much effort to have so little regard for future generations. That makes what the Federal Government has done, regarding deficit spending to such an extent that even our great-grandchildren may still be paying the bill, inconsequential by comparison, as that is only financial irresponsibility.

To the contrary, the likes of ExxonMobil, et al., where there is a strong likelihood that the CEOs and other irresponsible individuals happen to be Christians, albeit as un-Christ-like as is possible, for they are not acting as stewards of the Earth, but feel that they have the right to rape and pillage the Earth, so as to maximize profits, quite possibly, contrary to what the Shareholders want, were they aware that such atrocities had been undertaken on their behalf, especially if they had granted a "vote by proxy."