<p>Being a biochemist, I can tell you that the “science” behind some of the nay sayers of global warming is just as suspect. I find it shocking how people so easily believe something that one study finds. One study does not make a fact but with the headlines we read, you would think this is so.</p>
<p>It’s so funny that you give that example, that is what she had a question about! My daughter was concerned about the validity of a study where the results had not been able to be duplicated and whether confounding variables had been present or not, but the teacher just wanted her to take it all as dogma. </p>
<p>I don’t trust scientists who have no room for questions or the possibility of error - on either side of any issue. I can’t count how many times I have told my children, “Well, maybe we’re wrong. Always leave that possibility open.” I guess my daughter naively expects the same from her teachers. Of course, this is the same teacher who had a test question that, when answered correctly, said that Watson, Crick and Wilkins won the Nobel PEACE prize in 1953…hmmm, silly me. I thought that belonged to Charles Marshall and that the discovery of the structure of DNA earned the prize for medicine some time in the early 60’s.</p>
<p>sheesh!</p>
<p>Yikes! Hopefully the science teachers at BS will be far superior.</p>
<p>Yes, there is plenty of bad science on both sides of the global warming debate. Plenty of the naysayers’ opinions are payed for by those greedy executives whose stock options are tied to a certain “less than environmentally optimal” way of developing resources.</p>
<p>Common sense supported by statistically solid data tells me that the earth cycles up and down in temperature on a complex cycle impacted by things geological, astronomical, and organic. I can understand how changing the C02 (sorry can’t get the text to format correctly) percentage in the atmosphere can accelerate an increase or decrease (depending upon the direction of change) in atmospheric temperature until a certain tipping point where organic activity can counterbalance it. And digging up long carbon chains to oxidize into C02 can’t be helping. The thing I haven’t seen is an adequate model of how the geologic (upheaval of gases from within the earth and subverting of carbon molecules into the earth away from the atmosphere) are accurately measured to be scaled against this human activity.</p>
<p>At times I think scientists are too egocentric about the impact of man on the environment. We as a species have been here a very short length of time (geologically speaking) to adequately measure the changes that occur during a full phase of the heating and cooling cycle on this planet. We’d like to think that we’d slow down this warming trend everyone is talking about, but even if we stopped burning hydrocarbons tomorrow (highly unlikely) can we really be sure that we’d significantly delay the warming cycle much less stop it? I think we think too much of our knowledge.</p>
<p>Scientists and Science Teachers are people just like the rest of us, mere mortals with issues that cloud the rational thought. It is not an evil plot on either side of the debate, just a different set of motivators that drive the science out of science.</p>
<p>And all of this nonsense debate on both sides about global warming (megaphones on both sides shouting at each other) just harms science and scientific progress by distracting from the effort to teach science in a true sense - the pursuit of knowledge about our universe without regard our pre-formed beliefs. </p>
<p>Of course, where do most people get most of their misinformation about science? From our wonderful media sources, now reduced to a couple of new services with journalists whose scientific training is minimal not allowing them to critically assess the information that is presented as knowledge. Of course, the undereducated public (indoctrinated to be critical but not to think critically) eats this stuff up and drives the politics of funding of scientific research. </p>
<p>Did I mention that I was a cynic?</p>
<p>Well, this is what I have to add to the conversation:</p>
<p>“The Principle of Polarity embodies the idea that everything is dual, everything has two poles, and everything has its opposite.[7] All manifested things have two sides, two aspects, or two poles.[8] Everything “is” and “isn’t” at the same time, all truths are but half truths and every truth is half false, there are two sides to everything, opposites are identical in nature, yet different in degree, extremes meet, and all paradoxes may be reconciled.[9]”</p>
<p>Kybalion</p>
<p>(yeah, I’m an ex preppy college drop out hippy…hope this makes sense :))</p>
<p>Love it Sadie2!</p>
<p>Sadie…all I can say is “Far out Dude”! - Spicoli</p>
<p>It seems to me that people set way to high standards of proof for prudent policy making. The question should not be ‘do we have absolutely irrefutable evidence that global warming exists and is damaging the planet and our habitat?’ because if we wait for that it may be too late. The question should be ‘do have have enough evidence of disturbing changes that could (possibly) prove to be catastrophic and that being the case that it wold be prudent to address the apparent cause?’
Policy frequently does not have the luxury of certainty. All we can do is steer our ship in an uncertain world doing the best we can to understand the world. Yes we will make mistakes and no we can’t be certain a lot of the time. So what?</p>
<p>Absolutely Peteya!! In the environmental arena, that’s called the precautionary principle, and it is adhered to quite regularly by both scientists and policymakers worldwide (except in the US).</p>
<p>Luckily, that should not be the case in the US now that Obama is president and that he has elected to adhere to the Kyoto Protocol.</p>
<p>This thread is about greed and how it is viewed/taught/and untaught in New England Boarding schools. It is not a forum for Global Warming and/or Global Climate Change.
Please drive through.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>And unfortunately, we seem to keep repeating the same mistakes. Everyone was giving out environmental hurrahs when the EPA recently raised the future CAFE fuel economy requirements. Of course it would seem that increasing the efficiency of cars (less gas burned to go a mile) would result in fewer C02 emissions, wouldn’t it?</p>
<p>Unfortunately, we have strong empirical evidence that this is not true. It seems that we’ve been down this exact same road before back in the 1970’s. That is when the first CAFE regulations were put into effect, requiring a doubling of fuel efficiency. Unfortunately, somone forgot to tell Congress that when the variable cost per mile drops because of increased efficiency, the number of miles driven goes up. In fact, if you check out the current statistics we now burn (and import) more oil than before. C02 emissions vary directly with the amount of fuel burned as they are not affected by catylic converters.</p>
<p>So while we feel good about each mile we drive, we drive more miles than ever. There was an experiment conducted a couple years back with a cookie line called Snackwells. They were considered by most (I’ve eaten them) to be an excellent, low-calorie snack. If I remember the experiment correctly, they had participants self-serve themselves dessert of either Snackwells (1 group) or regular cookies (another group) both groups knowing the caloric count of what they were eating. I guess it turned out that the Snackwell eaters ended up eating more calories in cookies than the other group because they saw that low per-cookie calorie count.</p>
<p>I think the same can be said about making more fuel-efficient (cheaper to operate) cars. It makes it easy to say that you can afford to drive to places that you didnt’ before.</p>
<p>The message I am trying to send here is be careful what is purported to be “sound environmental policy” as it may not be the case. Separate the politics and rhetoric from the science and you will find the truth.</p>
<p>Tying this back to the greed idea, you might want to make it more profitable (or less costly) to pollute more rather than regulate the output of polluting devices. The market will fix the problem. The greed instinct (not the overwhelming need to keep everything but the general looking out for #1) can be harnessed for socially good ends. Oh, but that is not the economics they teach, is it?</p>
<p>If this is a thread about how greed is viewed in NE boarding schools, then it is heavily masked in anti-environmental movement rhetoric…but will bite my tongue, and “drive through” now …:).</p>
<p>When the school administration keeps harping on “Good” as defined as social justice and green, and “BAD” as corporations, they are spinning their own doom. </p>
<p>Boarding schools depend on alumni donations and high tuition. That takes money - graduates who make lots and lots of money so that they can fund all those capital campaigns and building project - or just keep the doors open. </p>
<p>The unending drumbeat of “capitalism is bad” from these bs profs is just plain old insulting to those of us who work in business, make money, and donate it to the school.</p>
<p>Which boarding schools preach that capitalism is bad, toadstool?</p>
<p>And, err, is there anything wrong with schools defining good as social justice and green, among other things too? I, myself, am quite a fan of social justice and sustainability</p>
<p>the best bs’s teach “doing good, while doing well.”</p>
<p>Define “social justice” please.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, the so-called “green” movement is more about results than the science behind it. Take for example the simple question of paper or plastic? I can’t remember how many times the “green” movement has flip-flopped on the issue. I think right now paper is in, but I could be wrong…</p>
<p>My point here is that schools should be teaching “sound scientific practice” (experiment design without a fact to prove - sometimes an experiment proves nothing), letting the facts sort themselves out instead of starting by identifying villians and then reaching for supporting data (mind you I didn’t say facts here as facts are derived from ALL data no matter which way they point).</p>
<p>Schools should not be defining good and bad. Schools should define acceptable behavior, provide access to data, teach the principles of logical analysis to derive facts, and teach effective communication based upon a common (within the larger host society) use of language.</p>
<p>Reasons why schools should not be defining good and bad - see the madrasas in the middle east that have people twisted in their thinking to believe they will be rewarded in the afterlife for blowing up innocent people. To them teaching their version of good/bad in school is the right thing to do. I’m certain that you are as sure of your ideas of good/bad as they are of their ideas.</p>
<p>goaliedad - It’s now neither paper nor plastic, but re-usable bags! Also, I enjoy the big picture pragmatism of your posts.</p>
<p>The whole “green” issue is too vast to isolate a single culprit or savior. The schools should be teaching “sound scientific practice” so that each person can intelligently evaluate the information available and make an educated choice as to their own “right or wrong”. GoalieDad is right, supporting data can always be found even if it is not factual.
I must confess though that while I am a scientist, I am “green” :)</p>