VIDEOS: Daily Show on Global Warming / Science
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Weathering Fights - Science: What's It Up To? | ||||
|
||||
Views: 60
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Rick La Greide on
-
This is not science. This is not education, This is propaganda. Give students balanced information and don't deny other perspectives based on motive, which all sides have including researchers that are making their living off of climate change research. Here is one source you can start with. http://www.oism.org/pproject/
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ryan Goble on
-
Good Morning Rick!
Well this is certainly an "out of the box" response to this post. I would respectfully disagree with you on both the "science" and "education" - lots of teaching can be done through satire. In fact, Swift's classic satirical essay 'Modest Proposal' is now a canonical work in many English AND Social Studies classes studying the British Empire.
The first clip, it seems to me, is highlighting the fact that research and organizations funded by the Koch brothers are generally directed toward supporting fairly extreme right wing positions - see "The billionaire brothers who are waging a war against Obama" article in the New Yorker. Additionally Koch industries "is involved in oil and other endeavors that produce large amounts of greenhouse emissions, and the Kochs have bankrolled numerous efforts to discredit climate scientists" (quote from the KC Star). The Koch's went out of their way to find a global warming skeptic hoping their review of the science would come back saying it was bunk. This Berkeley prof came back saying, "yeup, global warming is the real deal."
Furthermore, the slightly bizarre petition you link out to is not very credible. First, none of the scientists listed on their petition list their disciplinary training OR their institutional affiliation. Second, their organization (http://www.oism.org) site is not affiliated with an established college or university and does not list their funders. One can guess they are an interesting bunch as they advocate research in "pressing" issues like "Nuclear War Survival Skills."
Third, and most telling, the letter that leads off their petition against the Kyoto Protocol is made by the now deceased solid state physicist Frederick Seitz. While Seitz began his career with some major scientific discoveries he was one of the lead scientists supporting the tobacco industry in their now infamous and massive disinformation campaign to prove that smoking does not cause cancer. Part of the documented goals of this campaign was to cultivate ties with university scientists. Seitz moved from tobacco to disprove the human causes of acid rain, the depletion of the Ozone and, ultimately global warming. This is not simply common knowledge (see the wiki site on Frederick Seitz) but meticulously documented in many books including the standout Merchants of Doubt. That book traces the efforts of Seitz and the tobacco industry's work from it's genesis in the 1930's through present issues with global warming with big energy. The same people and groups that created doubt around the links between smoking and cancer are involved in denying global warming. If you get a chance to read this text it is a truly disturbing story about the creation of propaganda.
Great science / scientists are always casting questions about their research and looking for more complete pictures of their research. For example, we know smoking causes cancer, emphysema, and heart decease but science is still unclear on the exact mechanisms that cause this to happen. Some people that smoke don't get lung cancer! That does not mean smoking is not the major cause of the cancer hence it is still being researched. That does not mean there is not enough evidence to support the powerful links between smoking and lung cancer. I mention this because virtually every scientist is in agreement that humans are causing global warming - and it is occurring at a much more rapid rate than predicted! Details are still being ironed out but the major storyline - informed by millions of years of climate data (from core drilling) is exceedingly clear. If you want to learn more about the science I think this book Field Notes from a Catastrophe: Man, Nature, and Climate Change does a brilliant job of connecting a lot of disparate dots.
Also, if you don't believe that special interests can impact what message reaches the American public this book Censoring Science: Dr. James Hansen and the Truth of Global Warming about the censure of a prominent NASA scientist and MANY other NATIONAL scientists by the Bush White house is a story that read like a remix of Orwell's 1984. Not only is his research corroborated by many other books but a Republican congressman made this an issue for the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in the Spring of 2007 that led to several resignations and replacements at NASA over time.
Yes, the second clip posted above is pure satire, but it the same spirit of Swift's work; it is designed to help people question their assumptions. You are a social studies teacher, yes? For that reason I would hope that you would be interested in sifting through some more primary sources on this issue. Oil, Gas, Coal have massive amounts of capital that can be used to distort the public discourse on global warming.
PS - you're probably wondering why I know a lot about this topic? I'm actually just digging into these details for the first time myself as I'm consulting on a climate change curricula for NASA. The details of this issues, while new to me, are pretty easy to digest with a little reading. Most of the questions propagated by global warming deniers already have answers. That and, even if global warming was not a real thing, having cleaner air, water, land, and energy seems like a no brainer to get behind. I lived in LA for a year and coughed for the first 6 months because of the air quality. Who - besides the CEO's of polluting companies - wouldn't want to make that better and, why (is probably the better question)?
-
-
-
Thanks for you response Ryan,
I agree that my response is "Out of the box", certainly the current box of educational ideology. I have found that in education if you argue virtually anything from a libertarian or conservative perspective you are generally rebuffed on your sources because the only ones that are generally accepted are those within the liberal perspective. How many times have you heard a civil argument between teachers that include true conservative or libertarian ideas?
I agree satire can be powerful educational tool and I use it all the time. Swift is great, a modest proposal is a yearly part of my econ curriculum as well as “The Window Maker’s Petition” by Fredric Bastiat. http://ccsindia.org/ccsindia/lacs/25candlemakers_petition.pdf The assumptions behind these examples of satire are very different than the videos here, they are based on sound moral and praxiological grounds and not “OUR experts kow best, do not question them.
It is clear that not even close to all scientists believe in HCCC, and even if they did truth is not found in a democratic manner. Think of all the times in the past when one person exposes the falsehood of orthodoxy. Einstein, Pasteur.
If you want to discount opinion and science based on the motives of people who promote a certain perspective you should never believe anything that come from government. Think about it. Should anyone trust an organization that has a monopoly of force in a particular geographic area? This being said, if NASA or any other agency produces sound scientific research I will not discount it based on the financial backing. I suggest you do the same with the Koch brothers. At least the do not take peoples property at the point of a gun. By the way the Koch Brothers along with Bill Gates and Steve Jobs etc.have made more people happy with the product made from their resources at affordable prices than all the government ever.
I grew up just south of LA and suffered the smog, which is much better now than it has been since the 1940’s. I know it was a gov mandate to take lead out of the fuel that lead to this improved state of affaires but if courts would not have changed their focus from protecting personal property rights, which included the right to not have a person’s body invaded by pollution, to the nebulous and manipulative “The good of the country” during the progressive era this could have been cut off at the pass. See the last link in this response.
I was once a proponent of HCCC theory and then I began to look at some of the claims of the skeptics (political opponents use the pejorative deniers) This link is a good look at some real data that scientists in general agree on applied to HCCC
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
You want to talk about censorship, do you know how hard it is to get government jobs or grants if you doubt the current orthodoxy. The Oregon state climatologist was dismissed from his job because his research indicated that the HCCC theory has many holes.
The following film would be good to use a good rejoinder to Al Gores film
It is always best to look at the things unseen as well as the things seen. You are right that the goals of clean water, air etc. is noble and I would say necessary. There are more than one way to achieve these goals. I will stay “Out of the Box” in recommending another counterpoint for the classroom. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XMxgYY_q-AI&feature=relmfu
I will gladly stay “Out of the box” in pursuit of truth.
-
-
-
Rick, thanks for writing back. Unfortunately, I don't have time to write another long response but I'm bummed as few of your comments addressed any of the sources or arguments I made.
Again, the first site you toss out is not a reliable site and does not appear to have made it into any peer-reviewed journal. You are right to mention the paradigm shifts of Einstein, Pasteur as that is the shift that took place in climate science 20 years ago. If I recall correctly from my research the "water vapor" hypothesis is a case of magical thinking by an MIT professor Richard Lindzen that has been disproven. Lindzen was also someone who did not believe that smoking caused cancer. Double check, but I think you can find the details on how his work has been disproven in Storms of my Grandchildren. The work of that NASA and Columbia U scientist (Dr. James Hansen) and his team has been extremely accurate in its climate predictions over the last 30 years.
Yes, you can't trust everything government agencies put out but most science research (and in this case climate research) is developed by a wide range of national, international and academic teams. In theory (and to your point this CAN be theoretical) those organizations are nonpartisan. On the flip side there is now - after a lot of debate in the late 70s and 80s INTERNATIONAL consensus. So unless all the people trained all over the globe in science are charlatans there is more than enough evidence for action. While there are still many details remain, there is no question about the anthropogenic nature of global warming.
Again, if you don't read anything I mentioned above - I get it, fine. But seriously, the Merchants of Doubt book is a really impressive work done by science historians. If you can read it without writing the work off as a "liberal" thesis it impressively documents the forces "manufacturing doubt." The film you point to is also an area where many of those questions have been answered already but they are not honestly presenting the science.
I came to the details of this debate knowing very little but the stuff I have read has meticulous documentation, a wide range of government and university scientists in related fields agreeing around the major issues.
I've looked at your stuff and checked out two books written by skeptics and have found other books have scientific and peer-reviewed answers to nearly every claim made by skeptics (and deniers). It should be noted that the scientists themselves use those two categories as they view skepticism as extremely healthy.
We can agree to disagree but thank you for taking the time to talk about it. I've done a lot of homework on the issue and was happy to chat!
I hope your teaching goes well and you have a groovy holiday!
Ryan:)
-
© 2024 Created by Ryan Goble.
Powered by
