posted October 8, 2008
Today we are faced with an environmental crisis - a problem we brought upon ourselves. The evidence is all around us. The polar bears are losing their homes because of the rising temperatures. Carbon dioxide is trapped in the environment causing temperatures to rise which causes the icecaps to melt; leaving polar bears without a home.
Also the forests are being cut down faster then they can grow back, and aren’t being cutting down in a wise way leading to deforestation. This land is then un-farmable land and pretty much worthless.
Another problem that we have brought upon ourselves is the fast consumption of fossil fuels. Our consumption of fossil fuels has nearly doubled since 1900.
You may say all this isn’t true or that important, because you’ve never personally been affected by it. But think - have you not been affected by rising gas prices? What will happen when we’ve used all the fossil fuels?
This isn’t meant to be all negative - there are solutions. For instance, instead of buying that gas-guzzling Hummer, maybe you should look into a hybrid or a smart car, or just a car with good gas mileage. Another answer is to look for alternate sources of energy.
Even starting with small things would help. You could begin with recycling or planting a tree. Use energy efficient light bulbs or hang clothes on a clothes line instead of drying them in a dryer. Not only are these good for the environment, they save energy and save you money.
One of the most important things you can do is realize what you are buying and how it is made and what you can do with it after you are done with it (can it be reused/recycled?). The bottom line is just be aware and become involved because this is your earth and your job to take care of it.
Madison Ward
7th grader
Girls Preparatory School
* * *
I started reading about the environmental crisis and then realized this is again a GPS seventh grader who believes all the Al Gore fairy tales.
I probably should just pass by this, but since it represents the thinking of someone who has been trained to believe the world is coming to an end, I believe it does need a response.
First, there is no crisis about polar bears. We are not cutting down too many trees. Temps are going down not up along with more carbon dioxide in the air, and more fossil fuels are discovered every day.
So how does a student who has access to best information not only believe this but does not have the honesty to seek out this information.
It can only be she has come to believe in the religion that Al Gore teaches and her teachers probably teach this misinformation also.
All of this could be shown to her to be false, but it takes an inquiring mind - not one already made up. It is a shame that someone at this age has already had her mind made up on these issues, but this is the way of education these days. They tend to be indoctrinated rather than educated.
It is also why so many in science today lie about their numbers (like polar bear deaths, temp records, fossil fuels disappearing, and so on) so they make people live in a 'crisis' rather than live with the truth.
A seventh grader should not assume her teachers are correct, but should question their information. They should also be curious to look at all information out there rather than turn to school books or Al Gore's fictional movie.
Bruce Caldwell
Signal Mountain
sarmatt25@comcast.net
* * *
Mr. Caldwell,
I don't understand why you need to launch a personal attack on a 7th grader who has the initiative to express herself in a public forum. How about, regardless of her opinion, congratulating her for having an interest in participating in a public forum instead of watching TV or playing video games.
And how do you know that she is assuming her teachers are correct, or even if her teachers promoted the things she outlined in her letter? How do you know she got all of her information from school books or Al Gore's movie?
Even though you obviously disagree with her arguments, you can easily find them in a number of places from a number of sources, including tens of thousands of scientists and researchers, and advocacy groups.
By the way, I didn't see you list any sources for your "facts."
Robert Pregulman
Seattle, Wa.
* * *
Mr. Caldwell,
Wow, talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You strike me as the very definition of a mind already made up; a mind not even slightly open to other viewpoints or to changing.
Personally, I'm not sure what to think about global warming, but one thing I don't do is listen to partisan voices on the subject: be they too far to the right (like yourself) or too far to the left. I'm assuming that I'll learn the truth from people who don't have an agenda.
I just think it's a shame that you're so convinced you're right that you assume that Madison Ward has been indoctrinated and that she didn't question the issue herself. Why do you assume this? Because she disagrees with you. Because she agrees with a Democrat, while you believe no Democrat has ever been correct on any issue and that they are the root cause of all of America's problems.
I think you should consider to what degree you might be the one who has been indoctrinated.
John Stegall
Quincy, Ma. (formerly of Chattanooga)
* * *
The article by Madison Ward is unusual for a seventh grader. It is good that she has the insight to comment on the environmental subject.
The sad thing about an article like this, from a child, is that she obviously is being brainwashed by a teacher that doesn't understand science. She comments about the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide heating the earth and the big consumption increase of hydrocarbon fuel since 1900 that caused it. Unfortunately her teacher failed to compare the relationship between the two.
The consumption of hydrocarbon fuels since 1900 has increased by five or six times. The atmospheric carbon dioxide however is still below 400 ppm and has increased by less than 40 ppm over the same time period. The mathematical relationship is just not there to be able to conclude what her teachers have told her.
True science teachers, engineers, chemist and other technical people know the difference and do not subscribe to the political science bunch. Al Gore would have been the perfect Alchemist for teaching the production of gold from lead. In Gore's case it probably would have been zinc since that is the source of much of his money from the discovery of it on his family's farm land.
Madison, I hope you continue in the study of the sciences and eventually you will have the opportunity to have classes that will open the door to truthful understanding. Physical science and political science are not related. As you continue to learn, you will see that the polar bears have plenty of land but that they get most of their food from the water. The left wing news media and left wing teachers like to show a polar bear floating on a chunk of ice as though it has no land remaining. In reality, the bear is fishing just like its ancestors have done for thousands of years.
Gary Catlett
* * *
It looks the lib patrol at GPS is at it again; indoctrinating young, impressionable minds with false and half truths. At some point school leaders have to step forward and hold these teachers responsible for what they are teaching.
We could go into all the details, or just add a link that says to read the honest replies to the last GPS 7th grader that posted. The truth is not what has been written. This is C- academic garbage based solely on the content. Maybe some public school students with honest teachers should write some responses and put the facts out.
The environmental crisis has to do with many factors, not all brought upon by ourselves. Climate and environmental changes can and has been proven to be attributed to everything from volcanic eruptions, variations in solar output and earth's orbit, to atmospheric and surface reflectivity.
If land that grows trees is cut down, why would it be unfarmable? It has been growing trees, has it not? Here is a good question. How many trees have been cut down and replaced by concrete and asphalt at GPS and its immense campus, which includes a track and tennis courts?
Instead of complaining about the use of fossil fuels, allow drilling on our coasts and in Alaska. This will lessen our dependence on foreign oil, and buy us time to develop alternative energy.
W.G. Stoner
East Ridge
* * *
Bruce, seriously, do you really believe that? People that believe as you do scare me.
But don't worry, I, along with all the other incompetents in the world, will continue to do what I can to make a difference and hopefully this planet, that I am quite fond of, will continue to be around for not only me and my children but also for you and the other ostriches with their heads stuck in the ground.
Mitzi M. Brock
roguema@comcast.net
* * *
Mr. Caldwell,
Maybe the seventh grader is a little smarter than you and I. It's also a good bet the seventh grader getting a fine education at GPS. I applaud her for caring about the world our children and grandchildren will live.
Sometimes opinions and beliefs of others are not always political. So maybe you could better benefit the environment yourself by encouraging our young people.
Larry Jenno
Hixson
* * *
What is obvious to anyone who has read the environmental opinions Mr. Caldwell writes on a biweekly basis is that Ms. Ward has put much more thought into her opinion than he often does.
If Mr. Caldwell wants to win an argument based on using critical thought, he needs to catch his opponents a little earlier than 7th grade.
Bryan Vance
Johnson City
* * *
Regardless of what one believes concerning the physical science and the political science of climate change, the best lesson Madison Ward is learning involves neither. As is evident by the numerous replies to her post, she is learning that her opinions will be challenged and her facts will be questioned.
In an educational system (both public and private) where truth and knowledge are often secondary to self esteem and acceptance, she has stepped into the real market of ideas, where she will not be simply patted on the back for effort and participation, but challenged on her command of the facts. That's a good lesson to learn.
Regardless of whether we think Madison is right or wrong, one thing is for sure...you are never too young to learn that your opinions will be challenged and they are only as good as your ability to defend them.
To Madison I would just like to say, thank you for being involved, thank you for caring, thank you for having an opinion. Lord knows we need more of our youth to be engaged in the issues of the day. Having a passion for something is the first step to learning. You obviously have that.
The second step is to research, research, research. Keep learning, and stay involved. Don't shy away from those who challenge you, but at the same time don't dismiss their opinions simply because they disagree with yours.
In order to know what you truly believe, you must also know what you truly don't believe. Research the facts and opinions of those who disagree with you. It might change your mind, or it might confirm what you already believe to be true. Keep an open mind and go where the truth takes you.
Shane Beasley
Signal Mountain
* * *
Thank you Mr. Beasley.
It's always difficult to challenge a "kid," especially one who has screwed up his or her courage, stepped out there, and is willing to expose part of their most personal and private being ... their thoughts and opinions. In the 7th grade I was still trying to hide behind a pile of books hoping the teacher wouldn't call on me to speak or give an opinion. There are those who more than likely wish I had never progressed beyond that stage, too.
However, Miss Ward would be well advised to follow Mr. Beasley's advice. Never take statements of someone else as absolute truth without doing your own research to verify the facts. When I've gotten myself into the greatest bind has always been when I didn't verify my facts. In my business, there have been situations in which that could have cost someone's life.
Critical thinking processes and skills mandate that we research, verify, research, verify, research some more, verify, and then do a little more research and verification just for good measure. Even teachers sometimes have an agenda from time to time and will attempt to use their positions to "indoctrinate" rather than "educate." True education is teaching us the skills, teaching us the basic information necessary to learn more advanced matter, and then inciting us to expand our horizons at the library as well as out in the real world. And yes, incite most certainly is the correct word in this instance.
Ride, boldly ride
The Shade replied
Never be afraid to express yourself Miss Ward, but always be sure of your facts before doing so.
I can state for a fact there is no problem with those poor little polar bears. Why. Because when I was young they truly were endangered, their population was below 5,000 world wide. Now that I'm firmly ensconced as a member of the Geezer Gang their population is something in excess of 20,000. These are facts. These facts are verifiable. Critical thinking tells me that when a critter's population is increasing at such a rate they aren't endangered, sort of like the deer and the antelope playing all along Alaska's north slope.
Man made global warming is a hoax. Why. We've been told that 1998 was the warmest year on record and the decade surrounding it was the warmest in history. Perhaps it was, if we forget the fact that NASA was forced to evaluate a "glitch" in the computer program they were using to determine this. That "glitch" caused a minute increase to appear in the temperatures being reported but if we remove the affect of that, and look at historical data provided by NOAA, we find that of the 5 warmest years since records have been kept, 3 of them were during the decade of the 1930s and another was during the 1920s. There are more indicators that this man made factor is a hoax, such as similar changes occurring on Mars, but I believe the point is made. Checky checky all facts.
Just because someone has a bunch of initials behind their name doesn't mean they're competent in specific subject matter. I've been trained in electronics and that's how I've built my career, having to use the value of pi at least once a day. Does that qualify me to design a hydroelectric dam? Hardly, just as someone with a Ph.D. behind his name, and that Ph.D. is in the touchy feely arts, doesn't qualify him to do brain surgery or build rocket boosters.
We also have to be aware that some people have a financial stake in the outcome of particular issues. "Scholars" or "researchers" whose grant money depends on showing a particular outcome from their "research" should be shown for what they are when their experimental results cannot be verified by their peers, charlatans. To repeat my oft recited statement, I'll take their computerized weather models seriously when they prove to me they can forecast last week's weather.
Critical thinking ... those Greek Guys taught us that we could take specifics and expand them to generalities, then reverse the process and apply the generality to another specific situation. If it doesn't work, either our theory or our procedure is faulty and we need to go do some more ciphering. But that's how the scientific process works. That's science, not language or touchy feely stuff where we "feel" our way through the process and come up with a WAG as to why something is behaving in a particular manner. To be sure, science does require a WAG from time to time and we call that a SWAG. It's a leap of faith, but we still have to prove that our results can be duplicated using the same process in the end or it isn't science.
We also have to evaluate all methods that make up a process. Does it make sense to use a food product to produce fuel? No, not when people will starve because of it; exempli gratia, the fact that a child can be fed for a year on the amount of corn it takes to make a tank, just one tank, of ethanol for the average YuppieMobile. That's a fact, and a verifiable fact. Where's the logic in that? We could also discuss the fact that it requires more energy to build a hybrid YuppieMobile than a Hummer, but that's been proven too. Where's the conservation in that?
Should we conserve our resources? Most certainly. Should we turn our society, our world, totally upside down in the process? Heck no. Our nation has experienced massive delays in building new power sources just because some were afraid of the Pepsi Syndrome, or was that the China Syndrome. It was a long time ago. We haven't heard much about that hole in the ozone layer over the Arctic in recent years, though, only over the Antarctic. We can show that average temperatures are actually cooling this year over past years, but man is at fault for that too.
We're told to conserve our hydrocarbon based resources. We now know that the United States has known oil reserves that are 8 times those of Saudi Arabia. Within the last two years there was a vein of coal discovered out west that will supply our needs, with estimated increases, for about the next 400 years. But we're supposed to stop using all fossil fuels immediately, no matter what the affect on society, while we're developing alternate sources of energy.
Perhaps we would all be better off if we began asking those who preach doom and gloom, that man is destroying the Earth and all its glory, "would you like fries with that whine?"
I'm going to go listen to Elvis, and smoke a Marlboro, while I piddle with this itty bitty chunk of plastic encapsulated, and intentionally contaminated, sand that I'm trying to make do something useful. It wouldn't take much, at this moment in time, for me to develop an intense dislike for computers. But I will prevail. I have critical thinking skills.
Remember that Gaily Bedight Knight dude, Miss Ward, and to always check your facts.
Royce E. Burrage Jr.
Royce@OfficiallyChapped.org
* * *
There is a developing polar bear crisis. Mr. Burrage's verifiable facts, as he puts is, do not take into account several important factors. One, in the early 1900's there was not a set or efficient method of calculating polar bear populations so most of the early population estimates were just that, estimates and more like guesses. Many experts now agree that these early estimates were far too low. Secondly, what is evident is the hunting ground for polar bears is melting away which scientist believe will contribute to a decline in the polar bear population. The only way to confirm their assumption is to continue to let the ice melt away and see if the number of polar bears decreases, unfortunately by then it will be too late for the polar bear.
Mr. Catlett, you may want to study up on how the atmosphere works. I know an addition of 40 ppm of CO2 may not seem like a huge increase but it is, largely because of the chain reaction it has. The atmosphere is extremely delicate and the levels of water vapor, methane, CO2, N2O and O3 must remain within certain ranges respectively for the earth's climate to remain stable. CO2, methane and O3 make up very small amounts of the atmosphere (please note these amounts will differ for the different levels of the atmosphere) so even small changes in the ppm can lead to dramatic affects.
Mr. Caldwell, I find it very discouraging that you would attack the honesty of a seventh grader by saying she needs to seek out additional information. I suggest you do the same. Get in your car and drive towards the back of your mountain. Just a few miles past Miller's Cove you should notice something...land that has been completely clear cut. Yes, they may have replanted trees, as they are required to by law, but the planted pines. Wood that is not nearly as useful for man or animal as the large hardwoods that once covered this same land. But I guess it depends on what they individual considers "too many trees." Why not just let them clear cut the entire mountain then we can watch as it erodes away? Or we can just plant pines like the ones that line the golf course. These trees are actually dying now. So the evidence is there you just have to look for it and not always in a book or the internet.
As for arguments that they global temperatures are actually dropping, many experts predicted this might happen. The earth's climate is extremely complicated and scientists have no idea how the earth will respond to the drastic environmental changes we have recently put it through. By the time we prove anyone right or wrong it could be far too late for anyone to celebrate. There is no scientific model we can input data into that will show us exactly what will happen if we add to many CFC to the atmosphere or if the polar ice caps melt and until there is we must err on side of caution. It appears the seventh grader may have grasped this concept while others failed to.
One thing that everyone fails to see is there are signs they environment is changing, melting ice caps, rising sea levels, no more El Nino Southern Oscillation, the list goes on and on. Besides even if you do not believe in global climate change who would it hurt to conserve resources? I mean supply and demand right? The more resources we have the cheaper they become, simple economics.
Michael Bowman
Signal Mountain
McBowman778@comcast.net
* * *
The very first time I participated in this forum, I made the mistake of locking horns with a person I figured, by the maturity of the writing style, to be a grown, young woman, but after a number of exchanges, the writer emailed me and said 'he' was actually the nine-year-old girl's father, and I was scaring 'her'? Uh, who scared who more?
Turns out Dad was writing his daughter's class project (or whatever), a total phony who never expected to be called on the carpet.
Hello? If parents allow their children to participate here, the kids, real or fictional, should not be given a free pass to propagandize the
readers. If they can reason and write like a 30-year-old, they should be
ready to defend their positions. Or maybe there should be a kids' section.
John R. Smickle
Chattanooga
jsbottomfeeder@juno.com
* * *
Mr. Caldwell,
Your beliefs that global temperatures are in fact cooling, that we are discovering fossil fuels at a rate that eliminates the dangers of dependence on a non-renewable energy source, that deforestation is an over-exaggerated issue and that there is no polar bear crisis are surprising coming from such an “educated” and “inquiring mind” that you suggest you possess.
Your conclusion that a net cooling of the earth within the past year disproves global warming as a whole is rash to say the least. Global warming is a phenomena to be validated through measurements that span decades, centuries and millennia — not a single year. Ice core analyses reveal that we are indeed entering a period of warming on (at the very least) the scale of the earth’s natural 100,000 year temperature fluctuations. So the belief that the Earth is not warming at all is simply false. The concept of Anthropogenic Global Warming arises from the knowledge that current lower atmosphere greenhouse gas levels (particularly carbon dioxide and methane) are unprecedented as far back as our ice core samples reach (800,000 years). Given, the incontrovertible existence of the Greenhouse Effect (life as we know it could not exist without the process), I would say that Miss. Ward’s position on climate change is much more rationally developed than your own.
What concerns me the most, however, is the language you have chosen to use in your lambasting of a seventh grade, politically engaged student. You refer to her position as a “fairy tale”, a liberal “religion” and admonish her for supposedly lacking the honesty to seek out the allegedly irrefutable information you have conveniently left uncited.
You criticize her for not questioning her sources and call her a victim of liberal indoctrination. Mr. Caldwell you should take a close look at yourself in the mirror. You have allowed the political lens through which you view your world to affect your rational autonomy and have become yourself an indoctrinated pawn of the conservative misinformation machine.
I should probably have passed this by, but your argument represents the thinking of someone who has been trained to believe that science can be bent and twisted to meet the needs of a political agenda. As such, you and those sharing your mindset pose the greatest danger to the intellectual development of Western society.
Guy Alex Cooper
Sewanee, Tn.
* * *
I think we all can pretty much agree that humans are having a negative impact on Earth's environmental systems. Sane and measured steps should be taken to stop the damage and heal the Earth.
However, all I have seen from the most visible advocates of "saving the environment" (Gore, Obama and an assortment of "educators") are solutions not far removed from old fashioned Russian style Marxism. Right now this crowd dictates to plumbing manufacturers how much water toilets can hold (I triple flush just to defy Mr. Gore). They have dictated that within just a few years we have to use the light bulb of their choice, despite the dangers of mercury poisoning.
These folks are also debating the concept of controlling household thermostats from a central government controlled location. And yet I doubt Mr. Gore could find his way to the public concourse of an airport to catch a flight on a regularly scheduled commercial airplane flight.
I believe there is human-induced climate degradation, but because of the extreme politics and elitist nature of most environmentalists I would rather be engulfed by the melting ice caps than live under their thumb.
C.L. Miller
Hamilton County
* * *
From what we see this "child" researched the subject and found credible / accepted sources, digested those sources and formed her own opinion, expressed her opinion clearly and offered substantiation for her opinion, anticipated and accepted objections and pointed out impacts / negatives not based on validity of the opinion, came up with multiple solutions that were reasonable and within the average persons control, then tried to establish that these had potential value for the individual regardless of their position on the issue, and then asked for people to take a moment to think.
Obviously, some of you disagree with her opinion which is OK. Others felt the need to defend her and at this point the latter group became patronizing in their defense by assuming a lot things she did or did not due, we assume based on her age.
The inspiration for the letter is not a science course, but one that asks what it means to be an American with the intent to challenge the student to think. We are glad her opinion challenged you enough that you responded with your opinion.
We are not writing this to defend the writer, we think she can handle that on her own if she chooses to (but we hope she doesn't).
We are simply writing to say we are proud to admit this naïve; radical, liberal, brainwashed "child" is our 12 year old daughter.
For the record, she has never seen Al Gore's movie.
David & Laura Ward
Chattanooga
| Dining Out | Business | Movies | Focus | About Us |
| Church | Living Well | Memories | Outdoors | Real Estate | Student Scene | Travel |