A Science Project in Celebration of the 50th Anniversary of Earth Day
Normally, in spring, middle school students do science experiments. These days, they often do them in honor to the 50th anniversary of the first Earth Day in April 1970, which will be held on April 22 this year. Here's an idea for one, which can even comply with social distancing rules as students can do this in their homes with a computer. All it involves are data and graphs. No additional supplies from stores are necessary.
The purpose of the experiment is to support Democrat policies as they seek to stop people from using oil. The students would believe that if the showed the public the actual scientific data, instead of just repeating talking points and regurgitating dire warnings, that they could finally shut up idiotic climate change deniers and get this sensible agenda passed.
The Hypothesis: The increasing number of humans, increasing CO2 and oil use are causing a significant increase in global temperatures over the last 140 years. Those rising temperatures then cause the ice to melt, cause sea levels to rise and increasing and more powerful storms.
The hypothesis should be very easy to prove as anyone under the age of forty has been repeatedly told that the science is settled, and we must stop using oil soon as we have few years left to save humanity.
The students can start with a series of articles supporting the hypothesis. There are thousands of articles to choose from so there wouldn’t need to be much duplication. Here are a few:
1922: From the Associated Press, and published in the Washington Post: Ice caps will soon be gone, and coastal cities will soon disappear. (the students might wonder why these predictions were so wrong)
1989: Associated Press: "A senior U.N. environmental official says entire nations could be wiped off the face of the Earth by rising sea levels if the global warming trend is not reversed by the year 2000." (The students might wonder why these dire warnings were 100% wrong)
2008: ABC News: "New York City underwater? Gas over $9 a gallon? A carton of milk costs almost $13? Welcome to June 12, 2015." (The students may wonder why the predictions have been so wrong since the science is supposedly settled)
2019: From the UN: "Only 11 Years Left to Prevent Irreversible Damage from Climate Change, Speakers Warn during General Assembly High-Level Meeting" (The students might think, correctly, that these are essentially the same warnings from 1922 and 1989)
The science experiment has four variables: Global population, CO2 content in the atmosphere, crude oil consumption, and global temperature.
2) CO2 Content-1880 291 parts per million, 2019-415 parts per million. Up around 43% or a significant rise on a diagonal line.
4) Global temperature: 2019 -Around 57 degrees Fahrenheit which is around 2 degrees warmer than 1880 or up3.5%. What you get is essentially a flat line with waves going up and down the mean. The students would see periods of a decline such as between 1945 and 1976. The students might also note that a little ice age that lasted around 550 years ended around 1850-1870. The students might think: Wouldn’t it be normal to warm up some after a little ice age ended?
After the students review the graph and the data, they would properly conclude that there is zero correlation between temperature and the other three variables, but they would be confused, so they would look for additional support for their correct conclusion.
They would only have to look at 1970, the first Earth day, when the scientists were predicting billions would soon die from starvation because the Earth was cooling rapidly. We were heading into an ice age and we only had a few years left to solve the problem.
How possibly would scientists predict a coming ice age and disaster if rising CO2, petroleum use and too many humans cause warming?
For the umpteenth time we were also falsely told we were running out of oil.
The students would be spectacularly confused. Could they have intentionally been misled all these years? Would scientists, professors, entertainers, bureaucrats, politicians and journalists have been willing to spread false information in order to control the people?
The students might want to expand their experiment to include two more variables: Life expectancy and sea levels.
5) Life expectancy: In ancient times: 20-35 years. In the mid- to late 1800s, it was still only around 40. Today it is around 80. Therefore, life expectancy is up around 100% since the World started using a lot of crude oil. There is a direct correlation between life expectancy, the human population, and rising CO2. (The students should ask themselves why they are constantly told that Coal and oil and rising CO2 are killing the Earth and people when life expectancy has gone up 100%)
6) Sea levels: From 1880-2013, it is estimated that sea levels have risen .06 inch per year or a total of 7.2 inches. The best estimate of the depth of the Atlantic Ocean is 27,841 feet, the Pacific Ocean is 36,070, The Indian Ocean is 26,401 feet and the Arctic Ocean 17,881. Whatever the levels of the ocean’s seas are, a 7.2 inch rise in 133 years, would be minimal and there is clearly no correlation between sea levels and CO2, human population and crude oil consumption. Wouldn’t it be hard to measure deep seas within a few inches each year? Don’t conditions change each year? Isn’t there natural erosion?
After the students see that there is zero correlation between the variables, they might ask a few questions:
Why have we been repeatedly told that the science is settled when the data don’t support the theory?
Why have the dire predictions of the last 100 years been completely wrong? (The answer is clearly that the scientific data don’t support the predictions).
Does anyone really think government bureaucrats and politicians can control something as big and variable as the climate forever if we just hand them trillions of our hard-earned dollars?
Why are people who tell the truth that the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally called stupid and anti-science when they are stating clear facts?
Why are people who don’t agree with the theory called climate change deniers when they have never denied that the climate is and has always changed?
Why have the people who push the theory so anxious to cut off debate? Shouldn’t there always be debate, especially when so many are so anxious to destroy thousands of businesses, tens of millions of jobs, and end our quality of life, diminishing our wealth and our freedom?
Why are Democrats currently blocking aid to the people and companies as they seek to push their radical climate agenda and destroy the economy further? The answer is they really don’t care about facts or the people. They care about power as they always have.
I challenge far left politician such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Joe Biden, Al Gore, Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, Charles Schumer, all Democrats, journalists, entertainers, professors and scientists to look at the scientific data from the last 140 years and show any correlation between temperature and the other variables which are blamed for climate change. (There is none).
For some reason the incurious media will never ask questions to justify the Democrats radical policies.
I would also challenge everyone to look at the dire predictions from the last 100 years and find any that are true. I can't find any.
It is a shame that people who pretend to be journalists never ask anyone supporting the radical agenda, to destroy America, to justify the agenda with scientific data. Instead they just repeat the talking points and denigrate and seek to shut up anyone who disagrees.
It is very clear why professors and scientists push the theory: That is where their bread is buttered. If they disagree their spigot of government and other money will be cut off.
It is clear why many politicians and bureaucrats push the theory: The answer is clearly that they want more power and money for the government. They don’t mind taking away economic opportunities and freedom from the public and making more people dependent on government. More people being dependent on government gives them more power and control.
But why do supposed journalists just repeat what they are told and actively cut off debate instead of doing research and asking questions as their job should entail? Why do they repeat the “climate change denier” and “anti-science” talking points when the data doesn’t support the theory and all previous predictions have been 100% wrong?
Indoctrination is a truly dangerous thing. It is what fascists and dictators do. It is a great danger to the U.S survival as a great country when the young are discouraged from asking questions.
Questions should be asked of all scientists, all educators and especially all bureaucrats and politicians because almost all have an agenda. It is a true shame that almost all journalists clearly have the same agenda and must be questioned because they won’t ask the questions themselves.
Thank goodness we have a president who knows that energy independence and reasonably priced energy are essential to a thriving economy and truly helps the poor and middle class. Thank goodness we have a president who knows the climate has always changed cyclically and naturally instead of Biden or anyone from the other party who just repeats what they are told and goes along.
It is time that the media, including the WSJ and Fox News, stop misleading the public that there are moderates running in the Democrat party. The main media and Democrat darling right now is New York's Gov. Andrew Cuomo and he also wants to abolish oil. He, the media and other Democrats pretend they care about all lives but coal, oil, its derivatives and products have saved billions of lives over the last 140 years. We would not have hospital ships without petroleum. We would not be able to ship medical supplies and machines around the U.S. and world without ships, planes, trucks and trains powered by oil products. We would also not be able to meet the demand for medical equipment and supplies without machines and factories powered by our abundant natural resources, especially oil.
Why are Democrats called progressives when their ideas would move the country backwards rapidly? Shouldn’t they be called regressive, oppressive and depressive instead?
Image credit: Pixabay // public domain