Reading my blog and some of the comments from yesterday, a thought occurs to me and I want to pose a question.
There is a push to teach global warming in schools. I submit that virtually every public school teaches it to some degree or another.
My biggest issue with global warming is the shoddy science it employs.
Being an RN and attending nursing school I obviously was exposed to a lot of science and logged a lot of time in labs. I'm guessing I've taken over a half a dozen different lab classes throughout my education.
The point of this is I feel I have a fairly good understanding of the scientific method. The method being:
So the researcher goes through the first two steps, observation and questioning, to make a hypothesis. As stated above this could also be called a prediction or educated guess. This forms the basis of the experiment, what the researcher is trying to prove or disprove. A hypothesis for global warming may be that man causes it by producing greenhouse gases.
The process of proving or disproving the hypothesis is the experiment. The experiments for global warming vary from reviewing historical data, taking measurements of current temperatures, to using indicators like melting glacial ice, etc.
The researcher than gathers their data and concludes whether the data support their hypothesis or not. In other words do their data support the hypothesis that greenhouse gases are causing global temperatures to rise?
The issue I have with the global warming theory is that they have grossly corrupted the scientific method to support their hypothesis.
Right from the beginning the method is compromised because they refuse to acknowledge competing explanations for their hypothesis.
Researchers will discard data that does not fit their prediction.
There have been numerous reports of poor temperature probe placement such as next to air conditioning units that are emitting hot air or on hot roofs. Recording data from the wrong month such as recording September temperature readings as occurring in October, making October appear warmer than it really was.
So what happens is their conclusion is based on faulty experimentation making their conclusion suspect at the least.
My point then is, with our children already falling behind in learning science when compared to other countries, why do we accept the teaching of conclusions from poor experimentation as a defined fact?
I wonder how the acceptance of the global warming experimentation will bode for the future of our children's understanding of the scientific method? How can they possibly learn the proper scientific method if what we are teaching them is flawed?