Someone obviously has a lot of money to push this agenda.

Too bad the teach-in wasn't today. The snow might have saved a few young minds from even more completely one-sided, intellectually void brainwashing.

What happened to the great tradition of debate at universities? Are we too scared to listen to other points of view? Are we gods who need to save the world, and have no time or patience for dissent?

Sad to see the US educational system turning into just another Soviet style brainwashing machine.

Reply: Actually PH it was a very open forum. People in the audience were allowed to speak and throw whatever question they wanted to at the panel, and there was plenty of good debate between the panel and some people from the audience who had opposing views.

How many experts with opposing viewpoints were invited and allowed to speak? Reply: In terms of opposing experts, I did not see any. I was just talking about members of the audience.

People should read about how the Fascists came to power in Italy and Germany. There are many parallels between them and the politically correct crowd that runs our colleges and universities.

Reply: Wow!! That's all I can say about that comment.

I am glad that they were able to have this form of disucssion. However, there seemed to be quite a bias amongst the 3 at PSU. And when the big screen showed Mann and Alley, any doubt left the table. If this was a serious teach in, opposition views would be on the stage not in the peanut gallery.

And I'm sorry, how does Ozone recovery fit into climate change? (Reply: I would suggest looking up Dr. Anne Thompson of PSU. She is currently involved with the subject.) I was under the impression that the last round of economic losses endured by the american consumer addressed their concerns.

Can anyone tell me why nearly all of the researchers who believe in the theory of AGW seem to exhibit the stereotypical appearance of a 60's hippy concerned mostly about the "man"? Not that I'm saying anything or nothing...

I am glad that opposing views were allowed to ask questions, but I am more curious of how the presenters responded. Did they look down upon the question as unenlightened or did they seriously think about the response? (Reply: No, I did not get the impression that they looked down upon a question. They were certainly not vain.)Based upon the tenor of the statements put forth by the three, I would be willing to bet their was condenscension in their voices. Reply: Not from this group.

I wonder if Patrick or other deniers would support an intelligent design "teach-in"?

Hi Brett,

Fair enough. But why where there not dissenting experts on the panel? Reply: I do not know. I guess that question should be sent to the Focus the Nation committee.

Creating the impression of a huge body of alarmed experts vs. uneducated masses is perpetuating the media/Dan Fagin myth of "only two or three skeptical scientists left in the world."

Do the students not deserve to hear from or about the substantial body of dissenting scientists?

Mark:
To answer your question, no.
I for one would not give Intelligent Design any more credence than AGW.
Both are Ideologically driven.
Both rely on junk science
Both demand unquestioning faith from their followers
Both ridicule any descant ion.
Both begin with the conclusion and cherry pick the facts to support it.
Both depend on Goebbelsian methodology to propagate the myth.
I certainly would NEVER advocate that believers should be censored in any way however.

heh, heh, mark,

that was pretty good...especially from an AGW'r...have a nice day, bro...

Hi Mark. Why not? It would give legitimate science a chance to prove or dis-prove Intelligent Design once and for all. Isn't that how science is supposed to work? After all, Intelligent Design is only a theory, nothing to be afraid of, right? Maybe we can learn something from studying it. Maybe we can learn how to fill in the gaps of evolutionary theory. If Intelligent Design is proven incorrect, that would only strenghten evolutionary theory correct?

To the current topic: Even Hansen says that all aspects of climate change are not fully understood. Why not present everything related to climate change? What about the sun? Solar Cycle 24 hasn't started yet and has many thinking that we may be in store for another Dalton Minimum type event.

If the goal is to teach and enlighten, give them all of the information.

Hi Mark,

I would love to see a serious debate in our schools about the origins of life.

No one knows enough about it to hold a "teach-in." One extreme is armed with a literal interpretation the Bible, and the other extreme has just enough factual information to be spectacularly deluded.

It would be best to not let either of those groups dominate the discussion.

This should have been presented there:
Its a must read:
Solar Cycle 24: Implications for the United States

http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar_Arch_NY_Mar2_08.pdf

Excerpt:
David Archibald
International Conference on Climate Change
March, 2008
Do we live in a special time in which the laws of physics and nature are suspended? No, we do not. Can we expect relationships between the Sun�s activity and climate, that we can see in data going back several hundred years, to continue for at least another 20 years? With absolute certainty.
In this presentation, I will demonstrate that the Sun drives climate, and use that demonstrated relationship to predict the Earth�s climate to 2030. It is a prediction that differs from most in the public domain. It is a prediction of imminent cooling.
To put the solar � climate relationship in context, we will begin by looking at the recent temperature record, and then go further back in time.
Then we will examine the role of the Sun in changing climate, and following that the contribution of anthropogenic warming from carbon dioxide. I will show that increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is not even a little bit bad. It is wholly beneficial. The more carbon dioxide we can put into the atmosphere, the better the planet will be � for humans, and all other living things.

There was at least one hopeful sign-a lot of empty seats. I have yet to meet a single person in my circle of friends and acquaintances who buys into the GW hysteria.

Fair enough on the replies. Concern withdrawn on my behalf.

While I am curious about the ozone issue the Prof. mentioned, I guess I will have to prove BT right on this topic, not gonna bother looking up a bunch of academic data on the topic. Just wanted the cliff notes version at this point. I'm sure the issue is amazingly stimulating.

Mark:

I suppose you could try to have an "intelligent design" or other conservative topic teach in. And I would suppose that many would attend. The problem would be that it could never get off the ground because wildly liberal groups and individuals would likely sue to stop it. If that didn't work well enough they would picket it into submission. We see this often that it is OK to have a meeting about a liberal talking point in today's society but if you dare to mention anything even remotely considered conservative out come the insta-mob to harass you.

Fair enough. But why where there not dissenting experts on the panel? Reply: I do not know. I guess that question should be sent to the Focus the Nation committee.

Apparently Lindzen and McIntyre were unavailable.

Creating the impression of a huge body of alarmed experts vs. uneducated masses is perpetuating the media/Dan Fagin myth of "only two or three skeptical scientists left in the world."

I think a better description is reporting the truth. We've agreed that Lindzen and McIntyre qualify. How many more similarly qualified scientists does PH suggest there are? Oreskes couldn't find any, based on peer-reviewed literature. PH has ducked the question every time it's been asked here, so apparently he don't have any to offer.

If the population is small enough that Lindzen and McIntyre are the only names we've got so far, how large does PH assert it is? Are there 50 qualified scientists who reject the AJW hypothesis? 100?

I submit that the actual number is comparable to the number of credentialed biologists who assert the truth of the "theory" of Intelligent Design -- namely, not many -- if any at all.

Do the students not deserve to hear from or about the substantial body of dissenting scientists?

This "substantial body" exists only in the hearts and blogs of the right-wing contrarian blog world.

As we've already established here, the principle characteristic of the "substantial body" that PH generally cites here is their status as charlatan, crank, crackpot, religious fanatic, industry lackey, or some combination of all of the above. Haven't we already seen enough of Singer and Ball?

Beyond Lindzen, McIntyre, and say a dozen or so more, there just aren't any "dissenting scientists". That's the best and most factual answer to the question of why they aren't on any such panels. It's the reason why they aren't represented in the peer-reviewed literature.

They aren't represented because they don't exist.

"People should read about how the Fascists came to power in Italy and Germany. There are many parallels between them and the politically correct crowd that runs our colleges and universities."

I'm not as surprised as Brett was with this comment. The right-wing constantly compares every little thing with fascism, communism, and Marxism, and they have some perverse obsession with the idea that we face a nuclear holocaust if we don't do X, Y and Z. Someone needs to tell them that the Cold War is over.

What our right-wing friends -- and, by association, AGW deniers -- don't seem to understand is that their scare-tactics are an attempt to govern by fear. It is no different than the forms governments they criticize.

OK BT.
Have at it. Here is a partial list.

19,000 Scientists declare that "man-made" global warming is a lie with no scientific basis whatsoever (
http://www.oism.org/pproject/

4000 Scientists sign 'The Heidelberg Appeal'
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/heidelberg_appeal.html

500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares
http://www.globalwarmingheartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21977

400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.SenateReport

150 Scientists, Economists and Theologians sign An Open Letter to the Signers of 'Climate Change:
http://www.cornwallalliance.org/docs/Open_Letter.pdf

105 Scientists sign 'The Leipzig Declaration on Global Climate Change'
http://sepp.org/policy%20declarations/LDsigs.html

100 Scientists sign an 'Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations'
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=164002

77 Skeptical Scientists (
http://www.businessandmedia.org/specialreports/2007/globalwarming/SkepticalScientists.asp

60 Scientists call on Harper to revisit the science of global warming
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

47 Scientists sign the 'Statement by Atmospheric Scientists on Greenhouse Warming'
http://www.sepp.org/policy%20declarations/statment.html

41 Scientists debunk global warming alert
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2006/04/23/dt2301.xml

35 Skeptical Scientists, 'The Deniers'
http://www.nationalpost.com/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

And the BIG Concensus��..
Inconvenient Fact: ...only 51 individuals signed the IPCC Report released on February 2, 2007
http://www.canadianvalues.ca/issues.aspx?aid=267

BT says "their status as charlatan, crank, crackpot, religious fanatic, industry lackey, or some combination of all of the above."

I would tell BT to go to Hell, but he would undoubtedly complain to the Devil about the warmth until Hell freezes over... Academic Myopia and plain bigotry are difficult to differentiate; both are despicable when their only arguments are insults and denigration. I don't believe in Intelligent Design - not if it resulted in BT.

Mark:
Bush is a good example of an extreme. He has been our first facist President. Look up the defention! No hyperbole. The reaction to this stranger in a strange land, has been a good lesson for those fringy people. He has ruined our economy, made America hated around the world, and will loose the favor of his party,when the republicans lose next November. You have to be smart about what you wish for. If the debate was misrepresented then why didn't one of these University students stand up and say so. Don't let your kid be one that sits by, but encourage him to be involved. We get what we deserve.
Kipp

Hi BT,

No matter how many times the lists of skeptics and non-alarmists are published, you choose to ignore and forget about them.

Here is one particularly distinguished group.
http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/april2006/15/warming.html

Mark,

My wife grew up in the Soviet Union. They had excellent schools for core academics, and the children were generally only presented one viewpoint about social or political issues. It was believed that for the good of society, disruptive thoughts should not be presented to the children.

She can can scarcely see the difference between the Soviet schools and the public schools my children attend now, other than the fact that US academic standards are much lower. No teacher would dare question global warming (or any other PC topic) because they would be made to suffer for it.

The world depends on raising carbon-neutral, politically correct children, and there is no longer time for debate. It is just too dangerous to delay any longer, and debate will only slow down the all-important working of playing god and making a vain, irrational and futile attempt to save the world from the carbon bogeyman.

Dear Brett, this is what I and millions of others are talking about! This one-sided horsecrap like the "Teach-in" poluting our young childrens minds! Reply: what young children. Those in attendance were college students (young adults who can decide for themselves). Brett......Where is your Accuweather objective point of view? Putting some nice looking "babe" on the childrens screen of influence is not objective but is certainly pervasive. Paul

Patrick,

Schools are simply teaching what modern science tells us today. There are a few scientists out there who do not believe tobacco is carcinogenic. Should they be teaching this in schools to appease "the other point of view?" There are some crackpots out there who believe asbestos and lead aren't that bad for us, and our decision to eliminate them back in the 1970s was wrong. Should this "other point of view" be taught in schools? Give me a break.

The science is what it is, and even though it's hard for you to accept, the fact is that a large majority of scientists agree that AGW is happening. If the other side of a scientific issue is in a small minority -- as is the case with AGW -- they do not have any right to have "equal" 50/50 representation. This isn't speech and debate.

I have no problem with textbooks mentioning that further research is being done and all of the intricacies of our climate aren't fully understood, but to have charlatans like Dr. Gray or Steve Milloy given their own pages in a textbook is what would truly corrupt a child's mind.

Evolution is settled science. Yet, most schools do not teach this because the religious right-wing will not allow it. That, Patrick, is more representative of Soviet style schooling than anything you have mentioned.

"I suppose you could try to have an "intelligent design" or other conservative topic teach in"

You couldn't have a teach-in for intelligent design because there is no science behind it. What the heck would they talk about? What papers would they reference?

I think these teach-ins are for science and math and perhaps other academic areas. I don't think they are for political issues or "conservative topics." Yes, AGW has been politicized by the right-wing, but the science is what it is and it appears that the teach-in simply discussed the state of the science today.

The problem is deniers don't want to discuss the state of the science today, because it is inconvenient to their political views. Plain and simple.

GAry -
Hey. Don't forget to include Bishop George Browning of Canberra among the skeptics. His standard of scientific evidence is even lower than the rest of those listed, improbable as that seems.
J A

Hi Mark,

As a scientist and an engineer, I can assure you that there are as many different opinions as there are individuals.

The concept of "settled science" is a left-wing fantasy. We are just barely scratching the surface with our knowledge in many fields, including climate and our understanding of life processes. That is what makes it fun and exciting to do science.

Teaching children only one point of view is a need of small, scared minds.