Obama Administration to Honor ‘Green’ Schools That Teach ‘Environmental Literacy’

[RockyTopVol]

This is ridiculous. Reading. Math. Science. These are the things that should be the focus of school. Attempts to indoctrinate kids toward liberal or conservative political philosophies should be banned.

Absolutely agree.

 

[TennTradition]

It doesn't have to be a liberal philosophy. I would say that conservation is politically neutral and understanding the underlying logic of life-cycle analyses goes well beyond environmental philosophy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[volinbham]

It doesn't have to be a liberal philosophy. I would say that conservation is politically neutral and understanding the underlying logic of life-cycle analyses goes well beyond environmental philosophy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I agree with this. Reading the article though with it's heavy emphasis on "clean energy" makes me wonder if such analysis is really presented or its more "fossil fuel = bad; wind/solar = good"

Wonder what the take on ethanol or other bio-fuels?

 

[gsvol]

Hopefully this makes the full loop to where somehow wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone is tied to Islamic terrorism like one of these threads managed to do a few years back.

I think that connection is a fig newton of your
imagination.

Anyway, the discussion wasn't about reintroducing
wolves into Yellowstone, it was about whether to
remove wolves from the endangered species list.

You made the claim that wolves weren't depleting the
elk herds by predation but the elk hunting club of which
you purport to be member had joined twenty odd other
groups to sue the EPA to have the wolves removed from
the list, BECAUSE THEY WERE DEPLETING THE ELK
HERDS.

When you point a finger at me, remember you are
pointing four at your own self.

BTW, by act of congress wolves have been removed
from the endangered species list in Idaho and Monatana
and the us fish and wildlife service, which is supposed to
be the governing authority, have recommended they be
removed from four other states, including Minn, Wisc
and Mich, not that the radical vegan tree huggers at
the EPA will comply. :loco:

 

[milohimself]

Teaching the students how to think about life-cycle analysis would kill both birds with one stone, and is a very useful skill both in private life and professional life. I bet they don't bother though...
Posted via VolNation Mobile

I remember that being part of the curriculum in HS.

Hopefully this makes the full loop to where somehow wolf reintroduction in Yellowstone is tied to Islamic terrorism like one of these threads managed to do a few years back.

That actually happened? Holy hell I should have been in here earlier.

gs' corkboard is large, and his spools of colored string and boxes of push pins numerous.

This is ridiculous. Reading. Math. Science. These are the things that should be the focus of school. Attempts to indoctrinate kids toward liberal or conservative political philosophies should be banned.

I'm pretty sure this subject falls under one of the three.

 

[lawgator1]

I agree with this. Reading the article though with it's heavy emphasis on "clean energy" makes me wonder if such analysis is really presented or its more "fossil fuel = bad; wind/solar = good"

Wonder what the take on ethanol or other bio-fuels?

Your point being ?????

I think everyone (who doesn't work for own a lot of stock in oil companies) would agree that if technology could be developed whereby wind and solar were more economically competitive with fossil fuels then we'd love to convert, right?

If the "green" education being rewarded here is some sort of incentive to spur young minds to study those technologies and make them more efficient than fossil fuel, I say give out as many freakin awards as you need to.

 

[volinbham]

Your point being ?????

I think everyone (who doesn't work for own a lot of stock in oil companies) would agree that if technology could be developed whereby wind and solar were more economically competitive with fossil fuels then we'd love to convert, right?

If the "green" education being rewarded here is some sort of incentive to spur young minds to study those technologies and make them more efficient than fossil fuel, I say give out as many freakin awards as you need to.

The point is that both have costs and externalities. What TT implied is a thorough objective look at the issues with a cost analysis focus.

I've often seen Green Energy proponents downplay the costs and upsell the benefits while doing the opposite for traditional fossil fuels.

Our kids would be well served by learning analytical approaches that allow them to make reasoned assessments, determine relative strengths and weaknesses and reach conclusions. Our kids are not served well by being fed prefabricated solutions: telling them fossil fuels bad; wind/solar good without showing them all the data and how to draw the conclusions.

From the article it is unclear what is being rewarded.

 

[gsvol]

It doesn't have to be a liberal philosophy. I would say that conservation is politically neutral and understanding the underlying logic of life-cycle analyses goes well beyond environmental philosophy.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

How about this?:

From Larry Schweikart's; “What Would the Founders Say”


"What the Founders saw as the major threat was not man’s destruction of the environment, for both other men and the market would right that in time but a runaway government obsessed with its own godlike powers intruding into everyday activities. Certainly the Environmental Protection Agency crossed that line long ago.

More ominous now though, is the international threat introduced in the Untied Nations’ “Agenda 21,” which promotes “sustainable development.” This is a code phrase for a lifestyle that would put the world back into pre-Egyptian levels of civilization.

Under the rubric of Agenda 21, the secretary generals of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit stated that American middle-class lifestyles were “unsustainable” as were high meat intake, plowing of soil, single family homes - virtually anything associated with private property."

 

[IPorange]

Maybe not conspiracy, but strategized misinformation? When climate change activists don't even know about 10 years of global cooling, you kind of have to wonder what's going on with this movement. It's like protesting a war that doesn't exist. She won't even believe Lord Monckton's facts, she's so wrapped up in the propaganda.

YouTube - Lord Monckton Vs. Greenpeace: On The Streets - Dropping InfoBombs - ClimateGate Global Warming Hoax

10 years of climate cooling is another way of saying 1998 was the hottest year on record. It's semantics, and misinformation considering the 2000's weren't cooler than the 1980's.

 

[volinbham]

10 years of climate cooling is another way of saying 1998 was the hottest year on record. It's semantics, and misinformation considering the 2000's weren't cooler than the 1980's.

Not to derail this thread but how far off are the predictive models that were created in the late 90s. I thought they'd proven to not be very effective. (not sure just asking).

 

[IPorange]

Not to derail this thread but how far off are the predictive models that were created in the late 90s. I thought they'd proven to not be very effective. (not sure just asking).

They've been proven to be fairly effective from that time period, but are many times more sophisticated now and are proving to be quite accurate. Models are for as much understanding interactions of various factors as they are for "predicting" them.

Of course, any hard-line skeptic will vehemently disagree.

Judge for yourself:

The red is the actual global temperature data, the other two concern popular models. The light grey is all the of the model runs of the IPCC (including models of us not increasing production of anthropogenic CO2 starting last year) overlaid on top of each other, and the other is an average of several runs of another model.

Also, note at the 1998 start of a "10 year cooling trend," and see why I say that it's either retarded or disingenuous to hold that as evidence against climate change, given the trend.

 

[IPorange]

The IPCC has this regarding evaluating models:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

There are some evaluations in there as well, for you to take a look at.

 

[volinbham]

thanks IP

 

[milohimself]

Take your evidence-based, government propped farces and shove it, IPO.

 

[IPorange]

Take your evidence-based, government propped farces and shove it, IPO.

Rasputin will be here any minute to let me know he kicked the covers off last night and it was cold, thus invalidating any argument.

 

[gsvol]

I remember that being part of the curriculum in HS.

Was this part of your curriculum?

If you think that the escalation of homosexuality in the
US military is bad, wait till you see what the homosexual
movement is doing with public school children. And make
no mistake: What's happening here will soon be across
the country.
-------------------


Unbelievably, besides being supported by your tax
dollars, the Governor issued a proclamation supporting
the day's event, the City of Boston issued a
proclamation supporting it, and at least one government
agency had a table at it. And of course, the Boston
Police guarded the event and at times harassed pro-
family people (after being identified by the organizers)
who were trying to take photos, even though they were
on public property. (Pro-gay people were freely allowed
to photograph everything.)

 

[milohimself]

Objection, unrelated to thread.

 

[lawgator1]

The point is that both have costs and externalities. What TT implied is a thorough objective look at the issues with a cost analysis focus.

I've often seen Green Energy proponents downplay the costs and upsell the benefits while doing the opposite for traditional fossil fuels.

Our kids would be well served by learning analytical approaches that allow them to make reasoned assessments, determine relative strengths and weaknesses and reach conclusions. Our kids are not served well by being fed prefabricated solutions: telling them fossil fuels bad; wind/solar good without showing them all the data and how to draw the conclusions.

From the article it is unclear what is being rewarded.

Of course they do. They are touting the energy solution they either have an investment in or simply prefer for environmental reasons.

The difference is, we are already an oil-based energy economy. The ultimate reason that we don't make a change is that it costs too much to use these other power sources -- not including the enormous cost of the transfer, itself.

The reality is that shift to alternative fuels like these will be over the course of decades, maybe a century. We may be on our way already, when you think about it.


There is a difference between saying that education directed at the change is a waste of time or too vague right now to be of any consequence. But it seems to me that you have to start somewhere, and the efficiencies are slowly starting to come on line. Got to make the leap somewhere along the line, it seems to me.

 

[lawgator1]

Rasputin will be here any minute to let me know he kicked the covers off last night and it was cold, thus invalidating any argument.

It was in the 50s here last night. brrrrr... for this time of year.

Therefore, there is no global warning.

/thread.

 

[BigPapaVol]

The first paragraph has plenty of support to back it up. I've read those correlations dozens of times. Use google

The second paragraph is an educated opinion

Who took the time to tell you the second paragraph?
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[n_huffhines]

The IPCC has this regarding evaluating models:

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter8.pdf

There are some evaluations in there as well, for you to take a look at.

So maybe you can answer this question for me. I read the IPCC report probably from around 2008. They reported temperature anomalies, and as I recall Africa had the highest and S America had 2nd or 3rd highest. These are two of the least industrialized continents, what would be the explanation for their higher temperature anomalies?

 

[JayVols]

So maybe you can answer this question for me. I read the IPCC report probably from around 2008. They reported temperature anomalies, and as I recall Africa had the highest and S America had 2nd or 3rd highest. These are two of the least industrialized continents, what would be the explanation for their higher temperature anomalies?

Kind of a myopic view to think that air currents couldn't carry exhaust around the globe. Don't know nearly as much as IP, but it ssems a simple answer. Our atmosphere is not static. It is dynamic. Just a possible explanation.
Posted via VolNation Mobile

 

[TennTradition]

So maybe you can answer this question for me. I read the IPCC report probably from around 2008. They reported temperature anomalies, and as I recall Africa had the highest and S America had 2nd or 3rd highest. These are two of the least industrialized continents, what would be the explanation for their higher temperature anomalies?

JayVols is correct. Unlike sulfur emissions, which can "rain out" fairly quickly, CO2 emissions become generally well-mixed. I believe that the east/west mixing is faster than the northern/southern hemisphere mixing (Coriolis effect vs. jet stream, I think), CO2 is still fairly well mixed globally. The cooling effects of sulfur, on the other hand, are more local.

 

[VolinMichigan]

Exactly! How about preparing our students to excel in math, reading, computer skills, etc. It is insane the Dept of Ed would reward schools for wasting classroom time to teach the Green Agenda instead of preparing them to learn the skills they will need to find a career.

They already reward schools for wasting classroom time. It's called no child left behind.

 

[IPorange]

So maybe you can answer this question for me. I read the IPCC report probably from around 2008. They reported temperature anomalies, and as I recall Africa had the highest and S America had 2nd or 3rd highest. These are two of the least industrialized continents, what would be the explanation for their higher temperature anomalies?

Africa would certainly be due to a larger subtropical high pressure cell over the sahara. Now, a sthp normally sits there, but it was a big year for that (remember the summer heat wave in Europe, directly related.)

not sure about south America, other than the amazon having a drier year than normal, so perhap less evapotranspiration than normal.

Why do you think local industrialization matters? It doesn't at all.

Keep in mind as well anomalies are called such for a reason. In and of themselves, they're just unexplained regional deviations in a year, which may or may not be indicative of anything. The warm anomalies get a lot of attention because the models predict more of them, which has happened so far. Now that we are leaving a period of less solar activity, things could get a bit dramatic like in the late 1990's, as far as temp anomalies.
Posted via VolNation Mobile