My daughter's science teacher doesn't believe in climate change.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

THIS THIS THIS THIS!!

It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

THIS THIS THIS THIS!!

It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

If you think this you have missed the climate change point. It is more of a religious thing, and more about punishing successful countries and making them feel guilty, lowering their quality of life to that of others. And the popular people who espouse this fervor can't get on their own jets fast enough to get around the world to lavish conferences to talk, eat, and drink over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who does modeling and simulation for a living, I will tell you this:

Modeling and simulation is not science.

"Climate change" is based on modeling and simulation.

Thus, climate change is not science.

Not true. The science of climate change is based on measurement, from several centuries of data, including much more intensive measurements post 1970. We know from measurement how much and in what ways the climate has changed (a lot and escalating very quickly). This is basic science. So it's false to say climate change is not science: it's already been measured and verified.

We use modeling and simulation to predict future changes and assess the reliability of past simulations. Most past models/simulations have been too conservative when we compare them to actually measured climate changes. Any specific predicted model is just that: a prediction, but when the measures match it becomes verified. So specific predicted models of the impact of climate change are not "settled," but documented changes are settled and their to-date coherence with the most predominate models (but only worse) is also established.

Yes, any semblance of realistic measurement of climate measures has been over the last 50 years, in an incredibly complex system full of varying cycles. That is not enough to prove anything. And if you think that past climate models were too conservative, you have been getting your information from TV news, not from scientific research.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who does modeling and simulation for a living, I will tell you this:

Modeling and simulation is not science.

"Climate change" is based on modeling and simulation.

Thus, climate change is not science.

Not true. The science of climate change is based on measurement, from several centuries of data, including much more intensive measurements post 1970. We know from measurement how much and in what ways the climate has changed (a lot and escalating very quickly). This is basic science. So it's false to say climate change is not science: it's already been measured and verified.

We use modeling and simulation to predict future changes and assess the reliability of past simulations. Most past models/simulations have been too conservative when we compare them to actually measured climate changes. Any specific predicted model is just that: a prediction, but when the measures match it becomes verified. So specific predicted models of the impact of climate change are not "settled," but documented changes are settled and their to-date coherence with the most predominate models (but only worse) is also established.

Yes, any semblance of realistic measurement of climate measures has been over the last 50 years, in an incredibly complex system full of varying cycles. That is not enough to prove anything. And if you think that past climate models were too conservative, you have been getting your information from TV news, not from scientific research.

No, I know it's complex and nuanced. Some of the models (specifically those that focused on warming) predicted more warming than measurement (up until at least 2008) confirmed. But the models that focused more on intensity and also those that make more localized predictions for specific areas consistently erred on the side of being too conservative. For the work I do, which relies on estimations of potential intensity of events and their implications on design in specific areas, we have to keep increasing estimates because the models were too conservative.

[Anonymous]

Chaotic systems are really really hard to model.

Then again fiddling with data until it meets your conclusions doesn't help one's reputation either.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Chaotic systems are really really hard to model.

Then again fiddling with data until it meets your conclusions doesn't help one's reputation either.

Look at what insurance adjusters are doing with climate data. They are worried.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who does modeling and simulation for a living, I will tell you this:

Modeling and simulation is not science.

"Climate change" is based on modeling and simulation.

Thus, climate change is not science.

Not true. The science of climate change is based on measurement, from several centuries of data, including much more intensive measurements post 1970. We know from measurement how much and in what ways the climate has changed (a lot and escalating very quickly). This is basic science. So it's false to say climate change is not science: it's already been measured and verified.

We use modeling and simulation to predict future changes and assess the reliability of past simulations. Most past models/simulations have been too conservative when we compare them to actually measured climate changes. Any specific predicted model is just that: a prediction, but when the measures match it becomes verified. So specific predicted models of the impact of climate change are not "settled," but documented changes are settled and their to-date coherence with the most predominate models (but only worse) is also established.

Yes, any semblance of realistic measurement of climate measures has been over the last 50 years, in an incredibly complex system full of varying cycles. That is not enough to prove anything. And if you think that past climate models were too conservative, you have been getting your information from TV news, not from scientific research.

Following ice melt since 1979.

Hilarious.

Not long enough at all to draw a conclusion. The Pacific Ocean oscillation cycle is over 70 years a pop plus a ten year transition period.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

THIS THIS THIS THIS!!

It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

If you think this you have missed the climate change point. It is more of a religious thing, and more about punishing successful countries and making them feel guilty, lowering their quality of life to that of others. And the popular people who espouse this fervor can't get on their own jets fast enough to get around the world to lavish conferences to talk, eat, and drink over it.

I'm sorry, it appears you have been listening to conservative lies way way too much. I'd say you watch too much Fox and Limbaugh, but this is more a WSJ/NRO argument. Anyway, stop bending over for the billionaires that run the GOP and want to screw you.


Here's the truth:
The only reason there is a climate change denial effort is that wealthy oil and gas billionaires (e.g. the Koches) fund media and fake scientists to tell lies like the one you repeated above.

And here's the great part (not great for you): they're screwing YOU. The Koches are lying to you so you won't put up a stink while they rape the planet for you and your kids. Meanwhile - they get the cash.

And you.. get nothing.
"Useful fool" describes the GOP base for a reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He mentioned this as an offhandedl remark during a casual conversation with some students, he didn't announce it to the class during a lesson but still find it shocking. How would you react if your kid's science teacher didn't believe in climate change?

I would publicly shame the teacher and demand his removal from the classroom.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

THIS THIS THIS THIS!!

It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

If you think this you have missed the climate change point. It is more of a religious thing, and more about punishing successful countries and making them feel guilty, lowering their quality of life to that of others. And the popular people who espouse this fervor can't get on their own jets fast enough to get around the world to lavish conferences to talk, eat, and drink over it.

I'm sorry, it appears you have been listening to conservative lies way way too much. I'd say you watch too much Fox and Limbaugh, but this is more a WSJ/NRO argument. Anyway, stop bending over for the billionaires that run the GOP and want to screw you.


Here's the truth:
The only reason there is a climate change denial effort is that wealthy oil and gas billionaires (e.g. the Koches) fund media and fake scientists to tell lies like the one you repeated above.

And here's the great part (not great for you): they're screwing YOU. The Koches are lying to you so you won't put up a stink while they rape the planet for you and your kids. Meanwhile - they get the cash.

And you.. get nothing.
"Useful fool" describes the GOP base for a reason.

Well, that about sums it up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who does modeling and simulation for a living, I will tell you this:

Modeling and simulation is not science.

"Climate change" is based on modeling and simulation.

Thus, climate change is not science.

Not true. The science of climate change is based on measurement, from several centuries of data, including much more intensive measurements post 1970. We know from measurement how much and in what ways the climate has changed (a lot and escalating very quickly). This is basic science. So it's false to say climate change is not science: it's already been measured and verified.

We use modeling and simulation to predict future changes and assess the reliability of past simulations. Most past models/simulations have been too conservative when we compare them to actually measured climate changes. Any specific predicted model is just that: a prediction, but when the measures match it becomes verified. So specific predicted models of the impact of climate change are not "settled," but documented changes are settled and their to-date coherence with the most predominate models (but only worse) is also established.

Yes, any semblance of realistic measurement of climate measures has been over the last 50 years, in an incredibly complex system full of varying cycles. That is not enough to prove anything. And if you think that past climate models were too conservative, you have been getting your information from TV news, not from scientific research.

No, I know it's complex and nuanced. Some of the models (specifically those that focused on warming) predicted more warming than measurement (up until at least 2008) confirmed. But the models that focused more on intensity and also those that make more localized predictions for specific areas consistently erred on the side of being too conservative. For the work I do, which relies on estimations of potential intensity of events and their implications on design in specific areas, we have to keep increasing estimates because the models were too conservative.

Modeling chaotic systems is extremely difficult and not something I would be doing in excel.

As an aside, climate scientists are much better at collecting data and measurements than developing accurate models.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:As someone who does modeling and simulation for a living, I will tell you this:

Modeling and simulation is not science.

"Climate change" is based on modeling and simulation.

Thus, climate change is not science.

Not true. The science of climate change is based on measurement, from several centuries of data, including much more intensive measurements post 1970. We know from measurement how much and in what ways the climate has changed (a lot and escalating very quickly). This is basic science. So it's false to say climate change is not science: it's already been measured and verified.

We use modeling and simulation to predict future changes and assess the reliability of past simulations. Most past models/simulations have been too conservative when we compare them to actually measured climate changes. Any specific predicted model is just that: a prediction, but when the measures match it becomes verified. So specific predicted models of the impact of climate change are not "settled," but documented changes are settled and their to-date coherence with the most predominate models (but only worse) is also established.

Yes, any semblance of realistic measurement of climate measures has been over the last 50 years, in an incredibly complex system full of varying cycles. That is not enough to prove anything. And if you think that past climate models were too conservative, you have been getting your information from TV news, not from scientific research.

No, I know it's complex and nuanced. Some of the models (specifically those that focused on warming) predicted more warming than measurement (up until at least 2008) confirmed. But the models that focused more on intensity and also those that make more localized predictions for specific areas consistently erred on the side of being too conservative. For the work I do, which relies on estimations of potential intensity of events and their implications on design in specific areas, we have to keep increasing estimates because the models were too conservative.

Modeling chaotic systems is extremely difficult and not something I would be doing in excel.

As an aside, climate scientists are much better at collecting data and measurements than developing accurate models.

They are also really good at "massaging the data"...

[Anonymous]

Where is this? I want to send my kids there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Science teachers also should not be talking about what they “believe in.” Climate change isn’t like God or Santa, where faith and belief matter. The teacher could say “I don’t think there is enough evidence of climate change to be certain it is happening.” Then you can talk about evidence. Belief has no role in science.

Absolutely correct. And perhaps he was even more nuanced, for example questioning to what degree any apparent climate changes were shown to be related to human activity, and in any case, whether it was clear that any such changes were definitionally catastrophic.

THIS THIS THIS THIS!!

It's not about beliefs, it's about evidence.

If you think this you have missed the climate change point. It is more of a religious thing, and more about punishing successful countries and making them feel guilty, lowering their quality of life to that of others. And the popular people who espouse this fervor can't get on their own jets fast enough to get around the world to lavish conferences to talk, eat, and drink over it.

Clearly science isn't your thing. Maybe political science is (though your argument is flawed and conclusory, so maybe not that either). Either way, your argument belongs in the class on the latter, not the former.