blevkog

And so goes the privatization of education. How prominent are similar corporate/educational relationships in Canada?

Just noticed that Olbermann has Linda Froschauer, the president of the association, as his "Worst Person In The World" last night. You can check it out at MSNBC.

As a brand spankin' new teacher of Sociology at the Community College level, I have decided that my mission is not to teach about primarily white European theorists - my mission is to give students the tools to think critically and rationally about things in their everyday lives. I'm proud of that, and I think it's a skill that needs to be introduced earlier.
Having said that (and given my other profession, I'm going out on a limb here), I deplore the fact that in a country (or on a continent, for that matter) that prides itself on the postindustrial knowledge-based economy we profess to have, that government can shortchange education in any way. It is a disservice to the students and to the society as a whole. There are many complicated factors that cause the shortfall, including the growth in demand for health care (rant coming soon), but if we all think it's important, we'll fulfill our obligation to pay for it and not drive schools into the arms of self-interested big business.

And welcome back to everyone's favourite right-wing pinata, exdip.

Providing us with a list of 5,007 mostly unnamed scientists who agree with you does not make you or them correct. The issue is clearly under dispute, but you cite some unrelated phenomena as evidence that do not relate to the issue - volcanic ash from Mt. Pinatubo, for example. That would constitute an isolated incident, not a thousand-year trend.

Regardless, I am somewhat annoyed at the reductio ad absurdum, or the use of the most extreme and non-mainstream idea to represent the opposing viewpoint. I can't use you as an example of people who disbelieve global warming, unless I want to assume that they're all right-wing, narrow minded idiots. I'm not prepared to do that, not by a long shot. Those that disagree on the basis of scientific investigation are disagreeing for what they perceive as valid reasons. Ultimately who is correct and incorrect may come down to the moment when a scientist looks at his colleague and says, "Ooops." The beauty of science is that the true picture will eventually emerge from controversy and debate, as it always has.

Nobody, and I mean nobody is advocating a return to a Bronze Age existence. Are you advocating a complete disregard for the environment, the unregulated dumping of toxic, cancer-causing chemicals, the return of women to being the 'property' of their husbands, the execution of the disabled, homosexuals and immigrants? I didn't think so. Stop throwing around patently absurd assertions based on your prejudices. You could say I'm picking on you because of my prejudices, and I'll cop to that. I'm annoyed at anyone who is narrow-minded and misleads others through falsehoods.

You are also using the same rhetorical 'tool' you accuse those that disagree with you of using: the Argument from Authority. Lining up all those opinions behind you, fine, that's a rehetorical tool that has been effective for a long time (just ask Bruno LaTour), but you don't identify what your 'team' has in terms of qualifications either - Dr. this, Dr. that, but Doctor of what? You are using a double standard.

I'd just like to point out again that the Canada Free Press is a partisan, pro-right wing and religion opinion source. If you can point to a peer-reviewed journal that says exactly the same thing, I would take you seriously. As it is, I don't. Your sources are as opinionated and transparently biased as you are.

So nice to see you. Have a fabulous day, 'kay? Buh-bye.

NDIP,
There really is no need to compile a list of the "real scientists" who "believe" in global warming, because it is effectively all of the publishing scientific community outside of the list you've cited. If you care to take a look at any climate or general science journal (like Science) you will see that most of the talk these days is not about whether global warming is taking place, rather it is about trying to predict localized effects in the near-term based on the increasingly-detailed mathematical models. D

That is not to say that global warming critics do not have anything useful to add to the discussion. There is certainly something to be said for extra-terrestrial contributions to climate, but it would be very curious indeed if these contributing factors all pointed in the same direction at the same time as measured CO2 in the atmosphere is at historic highs and temperatures are at or near historicly high levels. Strictly speaking, it is possible, but not as likely as anthropogenic global warming. And that is what science is all about - finding the most likely cause or process that describes the observed phenomena. Not finding the most convenient one, and not finding the one that you are paid to find.

For the record, you are the one who brought the term "belief" into the discussion, inferring that teachers "believe" global warming, but only your list of scientists actually are qualified to not. Or something - I can't really figure exactly what your argument is to be honest. Nice little strawman there, NDIP. Scientists that "believe" in global warming do so after evidence, experimentation, and modelling proves it to them to whatever level of prove they need. This is not called "belief", this is called "being convinced". Thirty years ago, when climate models were simple two-dimensional affairs and didn't even include ocean/atmosphere interactions, perhaps then one could infer "belief" on the part of those that advocated global warming. However, the models have become far more sophisticated and the contributing information far more detailed and therefore the argument far more persuasive. These people have become convinced by the evidence and the arguments provided by the mathematical models.

About mathematical models, have you noticed that the arguments espoused by the anti-global warming cabal are generally not backed up by mathematical models? Many of them have some potential real effects (such as deep-ocean heat transfer in salt water, which I can't figure out if you mentioned or not), but there is no model to estimate its effects. I'm willing to bet that you wouldn't know that because you just clipping favorite paragraphs from articles that say things you like to hear. Modelling is cheap and relatively easy - even I could afford to buy MathCad, and even I could do a few simple things with it, but not even oil-company financed organizations like API have managed to put together a convincing model that explains even half of the existing data in any other way. Why is that, do you think?

Anyway, I've had enough of this twaddle.

I'm going to say nothing more of substance, because I'm raising my blood pressure to no good effect. I must congratulate you on the most confusing non-sequitur I've ever seen: "The UN is partisan." What the bloody hell does that have to do with anything?

So your ancestors farmed Greenland, huh? You ever heard of the historic accounts of vikings lying to get people to come to new colonies? Ever wonder why Newfoundland was referred to as Vinland, land of the vines? Ain't no damn vines, idiot, it was a sales pitch.

By the way, where is your blog, exactly? Given you have such strone opinions, i'd be interested why you don't see fit to share original ideas and opinions rather than demonizing those you disagree with. Put up or shut up.

I have no doubt that your ancestors did farm in Greenland. And I have no doubt whatsoever that they were closely related to one another. Your inability to distinguish science and religion and separate fact from propaganda is proof that you are not worth bothering with. I'm with Kevvy. I've had enough.

Can you even read NDIP's (lol at the mispelled acronym) second post? I think we're witnessing a meltdown of Chernobyl-like proportions.

I've been watching this debate unfold in the pages of AAPG Explorer over the past couple of years. The AAPG officially denies climate change right now, even though probably 90% of it's members know that it's happening and disagree with the AAPG's 'official' position. At my last reading (the June 2006 issue), the denial crowds argument reduced to this: Because there has been astronomically forced climate change in the geologic past, anthropomorphic climate change isn't happening.

I leave it as an exercise to the reader to spot the logical "whaaaa?" in that argument.

Because there has been astronomically forced climate change in the geologic past, anthropomorphic climate change isn't happening.

It kind of reeks of the neocons optimism about Iraq, no?