6th graders find Al Gore wrong on global warming

[Dr Grump]

You are using the exact same type of junk science that Gore uses. Earth is getting warmer while we industrialized, well aaboviously that must be why it's getting warmer. Do things happening relatively simultaneosuly, in of itself, does not prove that their is a cause and effect relationship. Something I guess you and Gore missed in high school science.

Is that why large numbers of climotologists (who, unlike you and I ARE scientists) agree with him? I'm sure the Earth warms up and down over the centuries, but are you telling me heat is not trapped by pollution particles??

 

[Bern80]

I find this a little baffling, how can anyone possibly argue that it isnt a good idea to live in harmony with the planet?, If we can make positive changes to do less damage to the environment why dont we?

Why are you argueing?

What is the problem?

The problem is that someone is tell us we must drastically change are way of life based on faulty science due to a problem that probably does not exist and is beyond our control.

You need proof that pumping chemicals into the air we breath and the water we drink is bad?
Are you retarded?
you actaully want to wait until there is indisputable proof of damage before we make changes to our lifestyles?

Pollution and man made global warming are different things. We can talk about pollution later if you want. It so happens that the main chemical of debate in this issue however is CO2. A chemical that was around and been in the air in far greater quantities throughout Earth's history then it is now.

the fact that there is some evidence now should be enough to tell you there will most likely be more.

That is a faulty assumption

Does anyone understand the ecosystem?
Everything on this planet it connected, and we just happen to be on this planet.
We are causing problems, we cant even begin to imagine, in fact when we are presented with some evidence, we argue about it, and we dont care cause we'll be long dead and our grandchildren will have to deal with it.

The problem is that we are reacting far to quickly to whatever pieces of evidence we are finding. Gore has taken one tiny piece of evidence that has not been even proved accurate yet and has told us we must drastically alter our lives. That's just plain stupid.

Why give Al Gore such a hassle for trying to make a difference?

I don't care if he wants to make a difference. But being a typically liberal he is going about the wrong way, but the way all libs do. He identified what percieves to be a problem. The next step in liberal train of thougt is "I must raise awareness". By telling other people how to live their lives. Instead of identifying the problem and just fixing it. It doesn't matter what it is, if your issue is feeding starving people in Africa, then shut up and go feed starving people in Africa. If you want to save the environment, stop talking about it a go out and save the environment.

You honestly think we will be worse off if we make efforts to live in harmony with the planet?

No, but some evidence also shows that it could be a wasted effort.

Why are we even hesitating to act and make changes that would benefit the environment?

Again this is a different issue then man made global warming

Lower vehicle emissions, Why not?

Because one the notion is that vehicles produce greenhouse gases even though the greenhouse theory is just that, a theory and two as a starting point cars and trucks are relatively stupid one in terms of overall producer.

Force factories to pump out less harmful waste? a bad idea?

Never said it wasn't a bad idea.

The government should pass ligislation and FORCE corporations that produce ANY consumer product package, to make it biodegradable.

To an extent they already do this, not that they should be

How can anyone disagree to make changes for a cleaner planet?

Again that isn't what is being debated. One can be all for recycling, less polluting, etc. and still believe man made global warming is bogus

Now a bunch of 6th graders are saying 'screw then environment, we proved it doesnt matter.'
WTF? we should be making children more aware that what they do and the way they live needs to be more congruent with balancing the ecosystem, and helping the environment.

People are making way to much of the 6th graders. All they were able to conclude was that with the information they were provided, man is not causing global warming

 

[Little-Acorn]

how can anyone possibly argue that it isnt a good idea to live in harmony with the planet?

No one here has said that.

Except, now you have. Why?

 

[jasendorf]

Looks like the liberal educational propaganda machine is slipping...

But the right-wing spin machine is in full swing.

 

[maineman]

little acorn.

have you seen inconvenient truth?

what is AL Gore doing today that is so bad for America and for the planet that he needs to be attacked by the right so visciously?

 

[Mr.Conley]

A sixth grade class held a "trial", in which advocates for each side presented evidence supporting their side, to a "jury". The jury voted 7-4 that global warming, if it exists, was not caused by humans.

I wonder if anyone on this board coudl present (and support) facts that would change their minds. Or have they already heard them, and decided as they did anyway?

Get ready for the "Aw, they had their minds made up beforehand even though we can't cite any evidence of it" argument from the usual fanatics.

----------------------------------

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.

“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom

With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.

Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.

“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.

In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.

“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.

The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.

In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.

With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”

Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.

“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.

Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.

“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,” Poppe said.

Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.

“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,” Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.”

Ben Ready can be reached at 303-684-5326, or by e-mail at [email protected].

Honestly, I'm in shock. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

 

[jasendorf]

little acorn.

have you seen inconvenient truth?

what is AL Gore doing today that is so bad for America and for the planet that he needs to be attacked by the right so visciously?

The right-wing extremists need a focus for their hate. This is how the handlers keep them in line... by focusing them on something to hate and destroy. It's been a well worn tactic for millenia... if you keep your audience focused on hating some villian, real or imagined, they don't bother with things like rationality or logic or thinking.

It's a form of crowd control. And no one controls their plebes quites like the Republican Party.

 

[jasendorf]

Honestly, I'm in shock. This is the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

This story's been the darling of the right-wing nutjob radio shows today... which begs the question of the right-wing... "Are You Smarter Than a Sixth Grader?"

 

[Avatar4321]

yeah...we should let grade school kids set environmental policy.

that makes sense....

oh wait...we've effectively been doing that for nearly seven years!

If sixth graders can see the inherent flaws of it, don't you think you should pay attention?

 

[jillian]

If sixth graders can see the inherent flaws of it, don't you think you should pay attention?

No. It just means they're being badly taught by a partisan teacher. Should make all the folk who constantly yell about the "lib" teachers feel good, though.

 

[Dirt McGirt]

No. It just means they're being badly taught by a partisan teacher. Should make all the folk who constantly yell about the "lib" teachers feel good, though.

Actually the problem started when the teacher assigned Courtney, the first girl in class with boobies, on the skeptics side and Jeremy, the class dork, to present the global warming side. Other than Jeremy having to dig wedgies out of his ass in between recess, I'm sure the objectivity factor among 6th graders was sound as a pound.

 

[jasendorf]

If sixth graders can see the inherent flaws of it, don't you think you should pay attention?

Sixth graders generally don't know their ass from a hole in the ground. Which explains why righties agree with them.

 

[Superlative]

The problem is that someone is tell us we must drastically change are way of life based on faulty science due to a problem that probably does not exist and is beyond our control.

Beyond our control? we do all kinds of things that have an effect on the air we breath, things we can change, things we can therefore control.

Pollution and man made global warming are different things. We can talk about pollution later if you want. It so happens that the main chemical of debate in this issue however is CO2. A chemical that was around and been in the air in far greater quantities throughout Earth's history then it is now.

You draw No correlation between Pollution and Climate Change? Man made or not, you are argueing semantics, its there and we can do something to lessen it.

That is a faulty assumption

Faulty? your saying there is NO evidence? And assuming that in the future there can/will be more is a faulty assumption?
I think your being a bit Presumptious in assuming we can do and live however we want polluting in various ways and experience no environmental repercussions.

The problem is that we are reacting far to quickly to whatever pieces of evidence we are finding. Gore has taken one tiny piece of evidence that has not been even proved accurate yet and has told us we must drastically alter our lives. That's just plain stupid.

How can you react too quickly? making changes for the better cant possibly be a bad thing? the sooner the better.
Drastically alter our lives, You dont even really have to do anything, its big business that will have to make simple changes, the next car you buy should be more fuel efficient, and emit less toxins, (provided you buy a car) and when does anybody care what corporations do? theyve been doing what they want for the most part anyway. we can tighten the environmental restrictions a bit more.



I don't care if he wants to make a difference. But being a typically liberal he is going about the wrong way, but the way all libs do. He identified what percieves to be a problem. The next step in liberal train of thougt is "I must raise awareness". By telling other people how to live their lives. Instead of identifying the problem and just fixing it. It doesn't matter what it is, if your issue is feeding starving people in Africa, then shut up and go feed starving people in Africa. If you want to save the environment, stop talking about it a go out and save the environment.

Just go out and do it? you wanna fly over to Africa with a bag of rice and make a difference go ahead, but its not that easy my friend.
Asking a multi national corporations to cut down on CO2 emissions doesnt take an email and a post it note, it takes legislation.


No, but some evidence also shows that it could be a wasted effort.

there is alot of evidence that shows recycling causes more CO2 emissions than regular landfill, just by transport and the actual recycling process itself, it is a wasted effort, but the US spends billions on that, we wouldnt need to if we could just bury biodegradable packaging and not worry about the juice seeping into our water table.


Again this is a different issue then man made global warming

The environment is completely interconnected, whether its liquid chemical or vapour chemical pollution, one way or another there is going to be an effect and it is a safe assumption it wont be a positive one.


Because one the notion is that vehicles produce greenhouse gases even though the greenhouse theory is just that, a theory and two as a starting point cars and trucks are relatively stupid one in terms of overall producer.

Theories, here is a theory, Cars and trucks, Coal burning power plants, pump pollutants into the air, why not start phasing combustion resources out now?
No one used to think smoking was bad for you 25 years ago, you could smoke in hospitals, you wanna wait until the planet definetly has cancer before you make a change?


Never said it wasn't a bad idea.

So you do want to make changes?

To an extent they already do this, not that they should be

they shouldnt be? why not? Mandatory biodegradable packaging would be better for everyone, it definetly wont hurt as much as all the plastic garbage bags full of other plastic we bury.

Again that isn't what is being debated. One can be all for recycling, less polluting, etc. and still believe man made global warming is bogus

So Recycling = good,
Less polluting = good,
Pumping chemicals into the air and not calling it pollution, then saying its always been there, Al Gore is a chump, a liar and I dont believe him and I want to keep living my life apart and ignorant of the environment, with no fear of doing any damage, cause i dont pollute in any way, in fact when i take dumps, i pump out pure grade 'A' oxygen which i store in tanks for the future when we cant breath the air, cause i dont believe in pollution. = good

People are making way to much of the 6th graders. All they were able to conclude was that with the information they were provided, man is not causing global warming

Screw the kids, i agree with George Carlin, the kid who eats the most marbles, doesnt get to have kids of his own, If we want to let these kids think everything is hunkey dorey, let em suck tail pipe.

 

[Little-Acorn]

No. It just means they're being badly taught by a partisan teacher.

Or that you are being badly taught by a partisan teacher. A far more likely scenario, all things considered.

Thirty-plus posts and counting. And we still have yet to hear anything from the Left besides insults, diversions, namecalling, robotic insistence that they are right, made-up "facts" and mind-reading of the 6th graders and their teachers, and other such trash. Plus, of course, shrill statements that it's the GW skeptics who are "vicious", "mean", etc., though all the skeptics have done is point out what this class did and how they drew their conclusions. Not a single attempt to demonstrate where they were supposedly mistaken, no supporting evidence for the lefties' side, nada.

In other words, a pretty typical reaction from the left, to an issue they don't like but can't refute.

The conclusion remains unrefuted. Global warming is unaffected by man.

 

[boedicca]

It is rather Orwellian: a teacher who allows policy neutral debate and encourages students to see both sides of an issue is someone spun as a partisan.

 

[Bern80]

Well that was a constructive response. thanks for telling me what I think.

I agree we are interconnected with the environment. The question that is currently debated is what are those specific connections. Some human actions measured against natures response will have a connection. i.e. a company dumps waste into a river, mother nature's reaction is the river is polluted and animals in it die and I have zero problem doing what we can to fix that problem because the connection is readily obvious.

The connection we are debating now is this. Some believe that there is a connection between the rise in temperature and the increased amount of greenhouse gases being put into the air due to the world's industrialization. The research I have read so far is that such a connection can not be scientifically established. The greenhouse gas sited most often is CO2. CO2 makes up roughly 20% of our atmosphere, btw. It is mostly Nitrogen.

What I have currently read indicates that their are a multitude of other explanations for this and some very good reasons as to why we are not causing the rise in temperature. The most glaring piece of evidence is that an increase in CO2 levels does not preclude an increase in temperature. it is exactley the opposite. When temp rises over time, CO2 levels will follow.

Also, we know that almost everything, not only on this planet, but in this universe, operates in cycles. The same has been shown to be true of climate cycles through examination of ice cores and seabed cores for thousands of years. Well before man could have made any significant impact. According to those finding we are in the middle of a natural warming trend and will probably be in one for another 400 years. At which point we should really worry, because we are then due for an ice age. We have far more to fear from that then we do in a warming trend. At that point will probably wish we had done everything we could have to keep the earth warm, but in reality there will probably be nothing we can do to stop it.

 

[Mr.Conley]

If sixth graders can see the inherent flaws of it, don't you think you should pay attention?

They're 6th graders. THEY THINK BABIES COME FROM STORKS. You're honestly defending this. Jesus Fitzgerald Kennedy Christ this is insane.

 

[Mr.Conley]

I officially have no respect for conservatives anymore. None whatsoever. I find this absolutely disgusting, and the amount of buzz this storiy has recieved on conservative sites and shows has shocked me.

 

[Little-Acorn]

It is rather Orwellian: a teacher who allows policy neutral debate and encourages students to see both sides of an issue is someone spun as a partisan.

Not "spun". That's when they take an issue and start explaining why the things being said, were good for their side. The arguments can sometimes get quite artistic, but at least were usually based on accurate quotes and demonstrable facts. This was done a lot in the 80s and early 90s, by people on both sides of every debate.

But for the last ten years or so, the left has pretty much given up most recognizable spinning, and has simply lied about the issues, trusting that their words will sway the more impressionable or less informed in their audience, despite clear evidence to the contrary. The example you gave is typical. The article describes the teacher's efforts to maintain nonpartisan information, and set up a truly adversarial debate where each side was responsible for producing their own info and trying to refute the other side's statements. The board leftists didn't like the way the results came out, so they have simply announced here that the teacher did fantastic things to sway the debate. No attempt to back up their smears, for obvious reasons since they had simply made their accusations up out of whole cloth.

"Spinning" is a lost art. Especially in this particular thread. What you're seeing here in the instance you described, is nothing more than disingenuous lying. Don't insult spinners by comparing them to the intellectually barren dregs of the left you find here.

The conclusion remains unrefuted. Global warming is unaffected by man.

 

[Superlative]

Well that was a constructive response. thanks for telling me what I think.

Also, we know that almost everything, not only on this planet, but in this universe, operates in cycles. The same has been shown to be true of climate cycles through examination of ice cores and seabed cores for thousands of years. Well before man could have made any significant impact. According to those finding we are in the middle of a natural warming trend and will probably be in one for another 400 years. At which point we should really worry, because we are then due for an ice age. We have far more to fear from that then we do in a warming trend. At that point will probably wish we had done everything we could have to keep the earth warm, but in reality there will probably be nothing we can do to stop it.

I see your point, Well put, and respectable.
Im still going to recycle my cans, and do what i can.
but, same as yesterday, you wont see me at an earth day rally.

...................................................................ALAN SHORE