Since Jeff M put a comment to one of my answer that I was a racist, it is hard to take anything he says as little more than ravings from a political ideologue. The thing about political ideologues, they really believe the nonsense that comes out of them. Sure, if you want to spread propaganda, then give courses about subjects and ignore the science.
David Archer has produced some excellent tools for science education. Everything I've seen him write has also been an accurate representation of what scientific research has found. It's probably a worthwhile class if you're interested in learning about climate science.
"Update 2: Hmm they assume from the very start that man is responsible for global warming, thats not very scientific is it."
It is generally considered that you should base teaching on the results of research that has been published in peer-reviewed journals and survived the test of time. There are thousands of studies over decades on climate change. Man-made global warming is now considered a settled fact by the majority of this research. The current scientific debate is on quantifying this in more detail, but we already know that more than half of the observed warming is man-made.
How many geography courses start by talking about the argument over the shape of the Earth, or biology courses start by talking about the serious debate over whether animals evolved or were put there by God/Amaterasu/Brahma?
This FREE class is for non-science majors. But David Archer tends to pile a fair amount of decent science in the class. There are videos to watch (or there were when I looked at it a few years back) and in general I found very few mistaken statements about physics by David Archer. (Yes, there were a couple of minor errors in his theoretical descriptions provided in the classroom presentations I viewed, then. Probably corrected by now.)
David Archer will provide a pretty good overview. I for one would very much like to engage and discuss with you what you hear, learn, and take away from the class if you decide to do the work there. And even if you completely disagree with everything, I'd still be very impressed with you all the same for engaging and thinking about it.
The idea that man is the most significant contributor to the speed of the rapid warming now is an informed consensus conclusion based on many, many lines of inquiry, good theory, and weighty evidence, not an axiom. However, I don't think the class spends much time trying to demonstrate such an assignment of responsibility. Instead, it focuses on the science details of the mechanisms of global warming generally. Last I looked, the class does NOT go around assuming X to prove X and I'm pretty sure it still doesn't.
Are you?
You aready made up your mind that they wouldn't support the fact that man is responsible for global warming with evidence. That sounds pro-bias, pro-dogma, pro-propaganda to me.
I can imagine Kano asking a question about a geography class.
Or a geology class
Or an astronomy class
Or a mathematics class
edit
Madd Maxx will chime in and say,
<2+2= Maxx's own personal number, 666>
We already know that you, Sage, and Jello have always felt that way about science and science classes. You just went from avoiding science to denying it.
The average PhD in the physical and biological sciences takes 6-8 of classes beyond college - most scientists are in their early-mid 30s before they get their first real job – and it takes another 5-10 of practical experience doing science to really understand scientific research. You guys have no science education, no experience in science, but think you know everything. It is difficult for people to understand how Deniers with no scientific background and who constantly demonstrate a serious ignorance of science in their every statement about science – can believe that know anything about science.
====
edit --
>>Update 2: Hmm they assume from the very start that man is responsible for global warming, thats not very scientific is it.<<
Hmm-- WRONG -- It started with scientists being 97% skeptical of AGW and changed over time as more and better data became available. Of course, you would not know that because you had no interest in climate at the time. I remember when even Michael Mann was a skeptic as were the gang at the CRU at East Anglia.
And, you didn't have to be a scientist or know the people. Anyone with a real interest who had simply been paying attention to the general science stories would know it - more evidence that your interest came late and was never serious until you became a political activist.
Yes, We are very aware of your anti-science stance. And the course is free.
Well, if you want to waste time, I guess it would be good. You didn't link to it though. What is it a graph or chart making course? What is its title, "Lie by Chart Weaving 101"? I think Jeffy would be very good at teaching that. He has a lot of experience.
Take a course where you learn something. Why would you pay good money to be indoctrinated?
if you know so much,why take the course?
willful ignorance is very sad
we all should know about our climate. we have to preserve it for our survival and for this we should take this.
This the one recommended by Jeff M
no
