Applause For School Board Stance on Global Warming

One Seal Beach resident praises the Los Alamitos Unified School District's decision to require politically balanced teaching of global warming.

It appears that have been misconstrued.  When he says "he represents the conservative viewpoint," it appears that some believe that he was referring to political ideologies, like Conservative and/or Liberal.  I think what Dr. Barke meant was that he accepted the conservative view of Global Warming, in that, as a scientific hypothesis, or theory, that it is not a proven fact, until it is, well, proven.  "Settled Science" appears to be the newly minted term for proven.  Has science fallen so far that we arrive at scientific conclusions through committee and/or consensus, or worse yet, by governmental fiat?  Would Einstein's Theory of Relativity been accepted if it had been taken up for a vote?

It is comical (not), that as we have this debate locally, that the (alleged) scientists who tout that our changing climate is "man-caused" are fighting Freedom of Information Act requests for the data that they used to arrive at their "settled" conclusions.  What is funnier is that these same (alleged) scientists were touting the impending disaster of global cooling, and the coming of a new ice-age, just 30 short years ago.

At the latest Climate Change Conference in Cancun, the "truth" about global warming was exposed.  German Economist and IPCC official Ottmar Edenhofer stated; "climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection, but is actually an economy summit during which the redistribution of the world's resources will be negotiated"

While not intimately familiar with the AP Science curriculum, if it does not contain some or all of the above information regarding global warming, then I applaud Dr. Barke's insistence that the coursework be reexamined, and that our children be exposed to all of the facts pertaining to the "unsettled science" of climate change, er global climate disruption.

To Mr. Brines' suggestion that we teach our kids how to think, and not what to think, I applaud your idea.  It appears, though, that you're at least a generation too late with your recommendation.

Earick Ward
Seal Beach Resident

Editor's Note: Letters to the Editor are submissions to Patch, and are not intended to reflect the views of Patch.com

met00 June 07, 2011 at 11:45 PM
For the record... the "left lamestream media" has run highly to the right for the last 12 years. One only has to look at what happened after 2006 and 2010. Kerry got almost no time on shows like Meet The Press, etc. after losing to Bush, on the other hand McCain is an almost monthly guest (in Sept. 2008 he was already the record holder with 65 appearances, he is now almost at 100) after his loss to Obama. You would think with all the transcripts available from Faux News that Mr. Ward could come up with better source material.
Planet lover June 07, 2011 at 11:59 PM
All I can say is that I'm so glad that I have to leave on work travel for two days and can walk away from this. I only wish there was a way to exchange contact information without making it public. I would like to continue our conversation away from Patch!
caerbannog June 08, 2011 at 01:51 AM
"he link that I posted encapsulates many studies that debunk the (alleged) science produced by Mann, and Hansen. It also provides citations for each and every one of their assertions. http://www.john-daly.com/hockey/hockey.htm You, nor Planet Lover, or caerdong have addressed any part of the content enclosed. Bad science. Worse methodology. Is that what your basing your position on, really?" If you want anyone to discuss the material in that john-daly piece, why don't you first pick a couple of what you consider to be daly's best arguments, summarize them in your own words, and explain -- in your own words -- why they are compelling arguments against Mann's paleoclimate work? Don't be shy about getting getting technical -- I have a pretty good understanding of the mathematical techniques that Mann used. You shouldn't expect to throw up links with minimal effort on your part and expect others to wade through all the details. You need to open the discussion with some substantive contributions of your own -- a simple link to someone else's work just doesn't cut the mustard. Your serve...
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 02:32 AM
The University of California? Could there be any more Leftist organization this side of Moscow? Leftist tantrums are comical. If you don't get your way, your going to throw a tantrum. Classic. You've totally lost sight of what science is about. That you accept that Climate Change is man-caused, while not "proven" in my opinion, as a scientific theory it should be open to constant and continual review. That you do not maintain this ideal, makes your argument dogmatic on its face. Global Warming is a "social justice" / "spread the wealth" scheme. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 02:36 AM
Sure. Here ya go. I'd asked this of Planet Lover and Met00 several times, and they balked. Do you support the presentation of the "Hockey Stick" graph? Is it an accurate assessment of the past 1,000 years of tempature?
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 02:37 AM
Also, Calvary Chapel isn't ultrafundamentalist. Whatever that means. lol
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 02:43 AM
"teach evolution properly" Has the science of evolution found the; goo to man map? In other words, like Global Warming, while "science" hasn't found the answer to; the Creation of the Universe, nor goo to man, Science insists that they have these answers, which, since they haven't answered these questions, clearly, they don't have. rofl
caerbannog June 08, 2011 at 02:46 AM
Some additional comments -- and a warning to the Los Alamitos loons who think that they are qualified to dictate the science curriculum in their school district. When the Calvary Chapel (an ultrafundamantalist megachurch chain) tried to pass off "creation science" as legitimate college-prep material, the University of California came down on the CC like a ton of bricks. UC told the CC folks, "if you don't teach evolution properly in your biology courses, we will not accept those classes as fulfilling UC admission requirements". Well, the Calvary Chapel folks foolishly thought that they could take on the University of California in court, and UC kicked the Calvary Chapel's fat *sses! So go ahead, Los Alamitos -- go ahead and push global-warming denial rubbish in your science courses. But don't be surprised if UC tells your precious little kiddies that their high school science classes won't fulfill UC admissions requirements. And don't even think about challenging UC in court -- the Calvary Chapel folks already tried that, and they left the courtroom with their teeth in their pockets. And yes, Los Alamitos, the University of California is watching...
caerbannog June 08, 2011 at 04:22 AM
"Sure. Here ya go. I'd asked this of Planet Lover and Met00 several times, and they balked. Do you support the presentation of the "Hockey Stick" graph? Is it an accurate assessment of the past 1,000 years of tempature?" It was not that bad as a "first try" pioneering reconstruction effort -- prior to Mann's work, nobody had attempted global temperature reconstructions from tree-ring data. Mann's 1998 reconstruction was the first word, not the last, in tree-ring paleoclimatology applied to global-scale temperatures. And in true scientific fashion, other researchers (including Mann himself) built on and improved upon Mann's pioneering work. Mann improved on his original work (and extended it to 2000 years) in 2008 (link here: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html). He also made *all* of his source code and data available to anyone who wishes to check his work. But if you want to discuss this topic further, you are going to have to offer up more of your own original material -- repeated links to that john-daly piece won't cut it. Try offering up some real substance of your own. And finally, are you going to admit that you were mistaken when you said, "James Hanson(sic) wrote in 1970 that the earth would see the next coming Ice-Age within 50 years"?
met00 June 08, 2011 at 05:03 AM
@PL. I have been using this handle for over 10 years in various places, I'm not hard to "uncover" with a minimal amount of research. And I would love to continue conversations with you.
met00 June 08, 2011 at 05:03 AM
"You need to open the discussion with some substantive contributions of your own " Good luck with that.
met00 June 08, 2011 at 05:04 AM
"And finally, are you going to admit that you were mistaken when you said, "James Hanson(sic) wrote in 1970 that the earth would see the next coming Ice-Age within 50 years"?" has hell frozen over yet?
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 03:09 PM
"It was not that bad as a "first try" - lol The Hockey Stick graph was featured prominently in Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. That it wasn't bad as a first try didn't get the same press, that its presentation "as fact" was given. rofl. And since you mention "tree ring" data, how do you account for Mann SELECTIVELY choosing 2/3rds of the trees within the range that served his [already arrived at] conclusion? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2351685/posts "Even if Briffa has a reason to exclude 2/3rds of the samples and somehow it's just a coincidence that the ignored data were from slower growing trees, nothing changes the fact that he didn't mention that in the paper, and nor, damningly, did he provide the data."
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 03:10 PM
@met This is what I wrote. What is funnier is that these same (alleged) scientists were touting the impending disaster of global cooling, and the coming of a new ice-age, just 30 short years ago. This statement is true.
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 03:18 PM
Bong, On another note, tell me about sun spots. Is there a natural cycle attributed to when they occur? Would sun spots cause a warming a cooling cycle on the earth's surface? Does man's CO2 production have any impact on the sun's activity? At what stage in the current cycle are we?
Planet lover June 08, 2011 at 03:39 PM
Earick, If you go back and look at the two other articles on this issue, I addressed the hockey stick and the global cooling issues there, so I am not going to waste my time again here. I did not balk. The fact is, there is a tremendous amount of real science available which take the sun's activity, volcanoes, and everything else that denialists throw out as an excuse to deny what is occurring, and throwing up a non-scientific blog that contains a bunch of links that don't work don't count as valid arguments for me or my colleagues. While many-- like you -- continue to fixate on Mann's early work on proxy records, the science of paleoclimatology has moved on. Since 1999, there have been many independent reconstructions of past temperatures, using a variety of proxy data and a number of different methodologies. All find the same result - that the last few decades are the hottest in the last 500 to 2000 years (depending on how far back the reconstruction goes). I have explained over and over again that there is a tremendous amount of satellite data, borehole data, stalagmite data, tree ring data, and glacier data to confirm the hockey stick: http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/smith2006/smith2006.html
Planet lover June 08, 2011 at 03:44 PM
You don't bother to look at any of the links, the arguments, or the references. I have to laugh about the sun spot arguments, as sun has been taken into account in the data. If you only look at denialist blogs, of course you wouldn't know that. I would take on each of your arguments, point by point, if 1) I didn't have more important things to do and, 2) there would be any point to it. The reality is, your mind is closed. As I have described previously, no amount of scientific data will convince you that climate change is happening and that it is being escalated by human activity. You seem to know more than any of the scientific or educational institutions around the world, so why bother.
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 03:46 PM
Dong, Hah! You so funny! You challenge me to present "facts" that debunk the Global Warming Hoax. I do, and you balk. Classic. On the sunspots issue, really, I expected more from you on that. As you know (but didn't want to present, because it didn't serve your dogma) is that we are at the tail-end of an 11 year cycle, which, by causation would warm the earth's surface. Haha. Here's another link on the "Hide the Decline" showing a "replotting" of Mann's data, including all of the data points, and not just those that served his(and your) agenda. rofl http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/26/the-deleted-portion-of-the-briffa-reconstruction/
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 03:48 PM
er, Planet Lover. Apologies to Dong. Thought that Lover's post came from dong. Planet Lover - Did you want to address the "Hide the Decline" chart produced with ALL of the Briffa Tree Ring data?
Planet lover June 08, 2011 at 03:51 PM
Earick, If you actually did your homework on the statement, "scientists were touting the impending disaster of global cooling, and the coming of a new ice-age, just 30 short years ago", you would also realize that you are incorrect. At the same time as some scientists between '65 and '79 were suggesting we might be facing another ice age (10%), a greater number published contradicting studies (62%). Their papers showed that the growing amount of greenhouse gasses that humans were putting into the atmosphere would cause much greater warming – warming that would a much greater influence on global temperature than any possible natural or human-caused cooling effects. By 1980 the predictions about ice ages had ceased, due to the overwhelming evidence contained in an increasing number of reports that warned of global warming. More scientific tools were available. Unfortunately, the small number of predictions of an ice age appeared to be much more interesting to people like you than those of global warming, so it was those sensational 'Ice Age' stories in the press that so many people tend to remember. http://www.wmconnolley.org.uk/sci/iceage/
Planet lover June 08, 2011 at 04:21 PM
Please stop posting blogs as credible arguments. In the scientific community, this just doesn't wash. Using tree rings as a proxy for temperature change is a relatively obscure branch of climate science. Tree-ring growth has been found to match well with temperature and hence tree-rings are used to plot temperature going back hundreds of years. However, tree-rings in some high-latitude locations diverge from modern instrumental temperature records after 1960. This is known as the "divergence problem". Consequently, tree-ring data in these high-latitude locations are not considered reliable after 1960 and should not be used to represent temperature in recent decades. While skeptics like to portray "the decline" as a phenomena that climate scientists have tried to keep secret, the divergence problem has been publicly discussed in the peer-reviewed literature since 1995 (Jacoby 1995). The IPCC discuss the decline in tree-ring growth openly both in the 2001 Third Assessment Report and in even more detail in the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report. The divergence in tree-ring growth does not change the fact that we are currently observing many lines of evidence for global warming, which I have posted and linked to numerous times now. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/fac/trl/public/ftp/pjk/BBCCArcticClimate/Krusic/jacd%27a95.pdf
met00 June 08, 2011 at 04:42 PM
Okay, let's take a moment to look at WHERE each party is getting their data from... Steven McIntyre's blog (named a .org, but does not seem to be a non-profit). Steven McIntyre is a Canadian mathematician, former minerals prospector, and semi-retired mining consultant who is best known as the founder and editor of Climate Audit, a blog devoted to the analysis and discussion of climate data. He is most prominent as a critic of the temperature record of the past 1000 years and the data quality of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies. and Free Republic "The Premier Conservative Site on the Net! ". verses ucar.edu - UCAR serves as a hub for research, education, and public outreach for the atmospheric and Earth system science community. We manage the National Center for Atmospheric Research and UCAR Community Programs on behalf of the National Science Foundation and the university community. Going from Univ. of Alabama to Yale... columbia.edu - Columbia University in NY and ncdc.noaa.gov - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Sources matter. I'm actually surprised that Mr. Ward hasn't gone to Michael Rivero's whatreallyhappened site yet for data (side note, I have known Mike for years- we used to work together- and he is a fantastic conspiracy theorist). I'm still waiting for Mr. Ward to go to bat with David Evans. http://www.scholarsandrogues.com/2008/08/13/the-weekly-carboholic-david-evans-climate-facts-hardly-factual/
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 05:00 PM
Planet Lover, Again, I was challenged to produce reports challenging the "settled science." So far, when challenging the "Hockey Stick" I've gotten, well, that was Mann's first attempt, and well, a good try. haha Then, upon challenging Mann's methodology for "selectively" choosing 2/3rds of the tree rings, to produce his modeling data(that happened to meet his objective), I've heard some mumbo-jumbo about there being an explanation for his deceptive practices. lol In law, when a witness has been deemed to be unreliable, ALL OF THEIR TESTIMONY comes into question. No worries. rofl If you have a cited reference for the explanation of "the selective" tree ring deception, please provide.
Planet lover June 08, 2011 at 05:28 PM
Earick, I've provided the references over and over again, but you don't bother to read them. I'm not holding your hand any longer. You're a big boy, and now it's time to do some real research. Sadly, you don't know the difference between reliable and unreliable data, so what's the point?? Are you so uneducated that you can't understand the myriad of references I've provided you?! I'm leaving for an important science meeting, and I'm done trying to provide scientific information to someone who wouldn't know it from a childrens' cartoon. met00, I'll try to find you offline!
Earick Ward June 08, 2011 at 05:35 PM
"Sadly, you don't know the difference between reliable and unreliable data" Au contrare. I am starting to get it. Your data good. My data bad. lol
caerbannog June 09, 2011 at 02:20 AM
Those who really think that climate-scientists haven't known for *decades* that the Earth was much more likely to warm than cool in the near future should watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0lgzz-L7GFg
caerbannog June 09, 2011 at 02:27 AM
This message is for met00, planet lover and others who have a long-enough attention span to watch and learn from this hour-long video of a lecture presented by one of the world's leading paleoclimatologists, Dr. Richard Alley: http://www.agu.org/meetings/fm09/lectures/lecture_videos/A23A.shtml So grab yourselves a cup of coffee, fire up your web-browser, and sit back for an hour of education and entertainment (in that order). If this were a perfect world, all of my college professors would have been as entertaining, engaging, and informative as Dr. Richard Alley is in the above video.
Planet lover June 09, 2011 at 06:58 PM
Thank you so much for the links. I will watch when I return from my meeting. If only people like Earick could be where I am. It might help deniers understand just how much scientific information exists on climate change. For example, NASA alone has 13 Earth observing satellites, in addition to NOAA, ESA, CONAE, AEB, CNES, etc. satellites that look at weather, climate change, volcanoes, fires, etc. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Alley! Did you happen to see Earth: The Operator's Manual?
caerbannog June 10, 2011 at 02:06 PM
Just a quick followup for folks who are still checking this thread out (Los Alamitos science teachers are especially encouraged to read this). There's a nice profile of Dr. John Mashey, the man who helped uncover the Wegman plagiarism, in Science. The article itself is behind a payway, but is summarized nicely at http://desmogblog.com/science-article-recognizes-john-mashey Los Alamitos teachers, when you discuss with your students the issue of plagiarism and its consequences, be sure to use the Wegman report as an example of what your students should *not* do.
CDC April 12, 2013 at 05:49 AM
I wish they would have put solar panels on the school roofs rather than the huge new energy hungry air conditioners our bond money paid for. They need to back-up their so called concerns. Bunch of worthless double talk by an over paid school board!


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »