Photo gallery: High school students mob Vermont Statehouse for climate change rally - VTDigger
 

Photo gallery: High school students mob Vermont Statehouse for climate change rally

Nearly 1,400 students descended on the state capitol Wednesday for a rally against climate change.

High school students organized the event, which was conceived three years ago by students in a civics class at Harwood Union High School.

Several of the students provided testimony to legislators on the importance of reducing carbon dioxide releases into the atmosphere that are causing rapid climate change.

Mount Mansfield Union High School senior Graham Swaney testified in the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee in support of a tax on carbon pollution. Several representatives have recently proposed a carbon tax and a cap and trade program.

Watch the rally on Facebook live.

“One of the messages we want people to take away from this is, it’s very much our fight,” Swaney said. “It’s not about having other people do work for us. It’s on us to educate other Vermonters.”

Lawmakers said they appreciated hearing from the students.

Sen. Chris Bray, D-New Haven, chair of the Senate Natural Resources and Energy Committee, said one of the most powerful student comments he heard was “Climate change is not something you believe in, climate change is a fact, and we want you to act on that.”

Students said they’ll be more directly affected by climate change than most of their elders in the Legislature.

“It’s our future that’s really going to be paying” for inaction, said Kassidy Abair, a senior at Harwood Union High School. “It’s important that legislators who can make these changes realize that the youth want something to be done.”

Abair is one of 30 students from more than 20 schools who organized the event.

Mike Polhamus

Comment Policy

VTDigger.org requires that all commenters identify themselves by their authentic first and last names. Initials, pseudonyms or screen names are not permissible.

No personal harrassment, abuse, or hate speech is permitted. Be succinct and to the point. Comments should be 1000 characters or fewer. If your comment is over 500 words, consider sending a commentary instead.

We personally review and moderate every comment that is posted here. This takes a lot of time; please consider donating to keep the conversation productive and informative.

The purpose of this policy is to encourage a civil discourse among readers who are willing to stand behind their identities and their comments. VTDigger has created a safe zone for readers who wish to engage in a thoughtful discussion on a range of subjects. We hope you join the conversation. If you have questions or concerns about our commenting platform, please review our Commenting FAQ.

Privacy policy
  • Tom Hughes

    The students who organized and marched in yesterday’s Youth Rally for the Planet are an inspiration. Vermont will be in good hands when they take the reins.

    • chris wilmot

      You mean students who were organized and marched. This was allowed, planned and paid for by teachers exploiting our taxpayer funded public school system

      • Matt Henchen

        The event was planned for and funded by a group of students and adult allies who met on Sunday afternoons. No taxpayer money was used to plan or fund this event.

        • chris wilmot

          The article states the event as taking place on wednesday. It also states that “20 schools who organized the event” were present

      • Jane Stromberg

        Oh, come on! Of course money had to be the first thought didn’t it…!

        • Matt Young

          Because we pay the union teachers for teaching liberal politics…yup

          • David Bell

            Only in the minds of uninformed right wingers angry that facts have a left wing bias.

          • Craig Powers

            Yep…only left wingers have facts…lol.

    • John Freitag

      Young people can be an inspiration, no doubt about it. Hopefully we are teaching that they need both a heart and a brain, and critical thinking skills essential in making good choices. This especially in a political system heavily influenced by lobbyists with moneyed interests.
      The proposal for a carbon tax in Vermont could be used a teaching tool on the complexities involved in trying to address important issues like climate change, and how trying to push programs that really are unworkable in a small state can have unintended consequences and, while well intended, can potentially do more harm than good.

  • I am surprised at the negative comments. These kids are legitimately worried about their futures and are doing something about it. And I’m surprised at how petty these comments are. Sadly, it seems that the notion of sacrificing a little now so that our children can have a better life is being lost, and instead it all whining about “too much taxes” and “its not my fault so I won’t look for any solutions” and “blah blah indoctrination.” Seems like some “adults” here could learn from these kids.

    • chris wilmot

      Politics does not belong in the classroom. Imagine if schools organized a creationism march on Montpelier.

      • Matt Henchen

        How to engage in democracy and participate in the American political system is not something kids just pick up – it’s something that must be explicitly taught. And if this is not the job of schools, then whose job is it? Our extremely flawed media? Politicians? We know parents should play a strong role, but how many parents have the time, knowledge, and skills to teach this to their own kids? We cannot be the world’s greatest democracy, if we don’t teach democracy.

        • Matt Young

          They aren’t teaching democracy, they are teaching liberalism. One sided, self serving, teachers union backed, be a democrat or you hate everything Bologna

        • chris wilmot

          It is not the job of schools to politically indoctrinate children with liberal agendas

          • Matthew Davis

            It is the job of the schools to teach science and critical thinking however. I encourage you to sit down with a group of students and discuss these matters….

          • chris wilmot

            The carbon taxes the students advocated for has nothing to do with science ir critical thinking. Trying to claim otherwise only shows how partisan your view is. Considering you speak of “your students” your willingness to interject your political beliefs into your classroom teachings is disturbing on many levels

          • Matthew Davis

            Actually Carbon Taxes and other policies to address climate change does have to do with science. Science informs policy…without science we would be lost. Analyzing science and the implementation of policy has a great deal to do with critical thinking. Try is some time…

            I don’t interject my political beliefs at all. I simply teach my students how to become critical thinkers. It is up to them to come to their own conclusions. Perhaps this is the part you are uncomfortable with. People thinking on their own…

            Once again, spend some time with some young people and talk to them about these issues. You might learn something…

      • I don’t understand your point, Chris.

    • Matt Young

      I’m not surprised they are worried, liberal press, liberal Ed monopoly

    • Peter Chick

      The only reason they are scared is because of what their teachers told them. Not a good reason at all. Thankfully many students do not believe everything their teachers say. Otherwise we would still believe the world to be flat.

      • My teachers taught me that the Earth is not flat. Not sure what school you went to.

        • Peter Chick

          That was a historic reference. Without questioning authority we would not be where we are today.

    • Don Dalton

      The kids have been taught to be worried about climate change. Have they been taught that the climate always changes? Have they been taught that CO2 doesn’t really act like a “greenhouse,” and cannot? Have they listened to any of the skeptical scientists– an exercise is weighing evidence? Do they even know what the arguments against the theory are? Have they watched this video made by retired NASA scientists who disagree with the mainstream view?

      Have they been taught that the theory of catastrophic CO2 warming REQUIRES that the tropical mid-troposphere heats up more than the surface, and that our satellite and balloon data aren’t showing this?

      Have they been taught not to accept everything in the newspapers and TV uncritically? Have they been taught that our freedom depends on the free exchange of ideas, and not on shouting down the other side because we believe they are “anti-science”?

      • David Bell

        “Have they been taught that CO2 doesn’t really act like a “greenhouse,” and cannot?”

        No, because that statement is false, it would be like teaching them 2 + 2 = 5.

        “Have they been taught that our freedom depends on the free exchange of ideas”

        This does not pretending a view laughed out of a field still has credibility. If it did we would still be teaching white supremacist beliefs and anti-vaccine propaganda.

        • Don Dalton

          Good David. I look forward to your enlightening us how CO2 prevents convective heat transport, just like a real greenhouse. If you’d been paying attention, you’d know that there are many serious scientists out there who do NOT believe that the theory of CO2 warming is accurate.

          • David Bell

            Don, this is basic, as in high school level physics. If you really do not understand how CO2 contributes to the greenhouse effect, ask one of the high school science teachers who attended the rally, I am sure they would be happy to explain.

            No, their are a tiny minority of scientists who deny basic physics, chemistry, etc. Which is why we have “serious scientists” claiming smoking does not cause lung cancer, vaccines cause autism, etc.

          • Don Dalton

            If it’s so simple, then explain it. Anyone, not just you. How is CO2 like a real greenhouse? Answer: it is not.

          • David Bell

            Don, let’s start with the dictionary definition:

            http://www.dictionary.com/browse/greenhouse-gas

            CO2 is not “like a real greenhouse”, it is a greenhouse gas.

          • Don Dalton

            The issue you called me on was my allegation that CO2 was not like a greenhouse. I specifically asked you to explain how CO2 prevented convective heat transport, which was your easy out to explain to us what CO2 is doing.

            Let me help you out. CO2 does not act like a real greenhouse, and the name of “greenhouse gas” is a misnomer– OK, no biggie. CO2 absorbs and re-radiates infrared radiation at certain wavelengths and the best estimates are that with a doubling of CO2, the extra energy that is re-radiated back to earth is about 4 W/m2. This is in the context of about 342 W/m2 of incoming solar radiation and 235 W/m2 of outgoing longwave radiation, and this amount isn’t constant but continually fluctuates, since the equatorial sun on a clear day can add about 700 W/m2 by itself, and at night there is 0 W/m2 coming in on the dark side of the earth. The real issue, and the uncertainty, is what happens to this 4 W/m2– which isn’t a lot, is it? Is it able to be radiated out to space due to something like Lindzen’s Iris effect, for which we have some evidence? Does it get amplified by water vapor and clouds, and if so, by how much? The models are telling us one thing but our satellite and balloon data are telling us the models are off by a considerable amount regarding the key tropical mid-troposphere, so in a rational society we would re-evaluate our models and ask if perhaps our models are wrong? After all, we’re told this is how science works, but for some strange reason we are NOT doing this, and that’s what’s making some of us slightly upset. So what’s going on? Why is science being trampled upon, why is the media so gung-ho on the catastrophe scenario, why do some scientists see CAGW under every rock when there is no evidence that anything catastrophic is happening now, except in the over-active government funding to continually find ever-more problems and get papers out about “catastrophe.” Odd, wouldn’t you say?

            Notice that in none of this have I denied that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas.” Nor do I deny that CO2 adds IR energy, ie, “heat.”

          • David Bell

            Don, this is the definition of a greenhouse “a glass building in which plants are grown that need protection from cold weather.”

            Can you see how that might be a little unclear?

      • Don, you are using the language of science to promote a political (maybe religious?) belief. Are you a scientist? If not, then perhaps the 97 percent of climate scientists (https://skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm) should be trusted in their assessment that A) the climate is changing and B) humans (not just Vermonters) are to blame.
        I personally cannot prove that the climate is changing, any more than I cannot prove that gravity exists, or that the world is round. However, these things are, in fact, demonstrably true. And I am willing to bet my children’s future on it being so.

        • Don Dalton

          My only political belief, which is derived from my observation that the true science is being ignored, is that we are being deliberately deceived. Why, I don’t know, but we are. That is my belief, and I’ll not get in the weeds by defending it, but since you asked, there it is. I do not form my views on warming because of my political beliefs; rather, my political beliefs are shaped by my experience of how the real science is actively suppressed. Someone recently recommended the book “The Devil’s Chessboard” in VTDigger comments. I would agree that things are not what they seem, and we’d better be quick about educating ourselves. Propaganda is alive and well in the USA.

          I believe in God but am by no means “religious.” I am not a scientist, but I was a philosophy major in college and believe in Socrates’ dictum that the unexamined life is not worth living, or (my modification) the unexamined truth is not worth keeping. My philosophy training has taught me to read things very carefully. Since taxpayers paid my education through the GI bill, I feel it is my duty to speak up. There it is.

          I am not paid by any fossil fuel industry or anyone else. I believe we should regulate pollutants. I’m for organic; I’m opposed to GMOs. I’m also deeply opposed to bad science foisted upon an unsuspecting public. I want Vermonters to know the truth.

          I have two small children whom I love dearly. That is why I speak. I do not want them to grow up in a world where truth is fiction, and fiction truth.

          Climate has ALWAYS changed. CO2 is a bit player. We are being deceived into believing that CO2 warming is “catastrophic.” This is 100% manufactured from climate models. A little strange, don’t you think?

          “Skepticalscience” is a propaganda blog. Please, don’t be a sucker. I’ve seen this before: “science ” blogs showing how aluminum in vaccines is harmless, when absolutely overwhelming scientific evidence says we should be concerned about this. I’m not saying anti-vaccine: I’m saying we should be concerned. Yet these supposedly “science” blogs are telling us otherwise.

          • JohnGreenberg

            Don Dalton:

            First, you articulate your core belief, then you refuse to defend it. Despite that, I feel compelled to respond. “True science is being ignored … we are being deliberately deceived. Why, I don’t know, but we are …. real science is actively suppressed.”

            First, consider the number of people involved. Doran & Zimmerman’s survey attempt to measure the scientific consensus among US earth scientists
            was sent to over 10,000 individuals. A Physics Today article estimates that there are 1 million physicists in the world today. http://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.5.010310/full/ The American Chemical Society has over 150,000 members; the American
            Association for the Advancement of Science, 120,000. (Both advocate AGW). Nature magazine estimates that there are over 1.5 million research scientists in China, more than that in the EU, slightly less in the US, etc. http://www.nature.com/news/china-by-the-numbers-1.20122 Even eliminating overlaps, scientists in non-pertinent fields, etc., we’re obviously talking about MILLIONS of scientists who would have to be involved in this conspiracy to ignore, deliberately deceive, and suppress “real science.”

            You’ve already said that you can’t answer one obvious question: namely WHY such a vast number of people would engage in such a conspiracy. That’s especially striking because the economic interests involved in climate change all favor the status quo. Crudely, them’s that’s got it want to keep it.

            In today’s economic culture, fossil fuel revenues and assets represent vast economic interests worldwide, while upstarts like wind and solar pale by comparison. The notion that 190+ governments of all stripes and descriptions – far left, centrist, far right, authoritarian, communist, and democratic – all accept a theory which runs counter to their interests begs an answer.

            But there’s an even more obvious question: how could such a conspiracy be maintained with that many highly educated (by definition) people
            whose career choices demonstrate a powerful interest in “real science?”

            Reinforcing that question is this one: who could keep such a large number of people spread all across the world in line? How could they do
            it? We know how the mafia and other similar
            outfits operate: they kill dissenters.

            But here, there ARE dissenters and they’re not just alive, they’re publishing (though seldom peer-reviewed). In a world with MILLIONS of
            scientists, even 3% dissent would mean that there must be thousands of dissenters from the onsensus. Oddly, however, you constantly cite the same handful of names.

            In sum, you choose to believe in a conspiracy which you can’t define and for which there is actually NO evidence, maintained among a vast number of scientists (not to mention government officials, etc.) running contrary to clear economic incentives, while ignoring that highly motivated
            economic interests have already demonstrated their willingness to spend large amounts of money to support a few dissenters and dissenting think tanks.

          • Don Dalton

            The “consensus” is bogus. Some 300 scientists signed on to Lindzen’s petition; 500 defended Soon; scientists have resigned from the APS over its stance on warming; retired NASA scientists call the climate models invalid; studies done by Shulte and Legates find that the consensus is overblown. We are constantly told that these scientists are anti-science and deniers, and that the debate is over. It seems a little odd that a subject that is so complex, and about which so little is known, and about which a significant number of scientists disagree, should no longer be debatable. The atmosphere is not as warm as models predict, yet we ignore this very fundamental fact. Why?

            The real money goes to government and institutional grants to find global warming everywhere and to support the many organizations throughout the world that uphold an alarmist scenario, including the IPCC, which touts alarmist predictions in its summaries for policymakers that the actual, lengthy reports don’t support.

          • David Bell

            The consensus is a fact, which is one of the many reasons no scientific institution of national or international standing supports your belief system in the face of actual facts.

          • JohnGreenberg

            Your comment doesn’t actually respond to anything I said. Rather than engage in an interminable back and forth, I’ll try a different approach in an attempt to pinpoint where our difference lies. I’ll ask you a series of yes or no questions.

            1) Do you acknowledge that there are hundreds of thousands, if not millions of scientists in the world who work in areas related to climate change? 1a) May I use 1 million as a round ballpark figure?

            2) Is it reasonable to assume that since there are over 10,000 researchers in the US
            working specifically in climate science and since climate science is only one of the disciplines related to climate change, that there are likely to be at least 100,000 scientists actually working in disciplines directly related to climate change worldwide? 2a) May I use 100,000 as a round ballpark figure?

            3) Assuming the answers above are all “yes,” I assume you agree that it would be fair to conclude that, if the 97% figure is correct (I
            know you say it isn’t), that it would mathematically imply that there are 3,000
            working dissenters and 30,000 scientifically trained and interested dissenters in the world?

            4) To your knowledge, has anyone ever suggested that the correct figures in #3 are actually 0?

            5) If the answer to #4 is no, then can we agree that the mere existence of several hundred dissenters does NOT disprove the notion that
            there is 97% agreement among scientists about AGW?

            Having concluded the yes or no part of this, here are two further questions:

            6) If you do not agree to #5, why not?

            7) If you do, then what is the evidence that there is no consensus among climate scientists about AGW, since the evidence you keep
            presenting proves nothing?

          • Robert Lehmert
  • rosemariejackowski

    If they REALLY care about the environment, they would be protesting the 54 BILLION dollar increase in the Offence Budget. The Pentagon is the biggest threat to the Planet.

  • Christopher Daniels

    Awesome job disparaging kids for participating in democracy. ‘Brainwashed’. ‘Indoctrination camps’. ‘Coddle kids.’ What a bunch of classy commentators.

    • Steve Baker

      We could give them all Trophies for Participation. It’s an interesting one side debate.

      • Robert Lehmert

        A bunch of kids just like them stopped the war in Vietnam. Took a while, but we did it.

  • Richard Vincent

    Hi, my name is Richard Vincent and I’m a student from Winooski High School. I helped organize the Youth Rally for Climate Change and I encourage you all to attend next years rally to see what kind of message we’re trying to send to VT and beyond. The Youth Rally is a very fun experience and gives us a chance to voice our opinion on this very important issue. Climate change isn’t stopping anytime soon, and not doing anything about it doesn’t help that. Sure, it’ll cost everybody somehow. Nobody said it would be easy, but this is a serious problem that we NEED to worry about. So please, come to the rally next year, and see what it’s all about!

    • Paul Richards

      “I helped organize the Youth Rally for Climate Change…”
      Richard; they did tell you that the climate has been changing since the beginning of time right? They did tell you that you can’t stop it from changing right? Did they tell you that if the earth was represented by a football field that mans time on it would look something like a blade of grass at the end zone? Did they tell you that all of the things that Al Gore said would happen in that movie they played for you never happened? Did they tell you that Al Gore is a community organizer and not a scientist? Did they tell you that the “scientific community” was caught cheating on their findings about global warming? Did they tell you that there are other real scientists that don’t agree with the “consensus” on global warming? Did they present the findings of both sides of the argument in an unbiased way so that you might decide for yourself what you believe is right? Have you lived in a completely unbiased world with no influences from family, friends, the media and teachers on this subject?
      “The Youth Rally is a very fun experience…” This is not all fun and games. What governments are doing around the world regarding climate change will have drastic effects on us all. Make sure you are not being led like a sheep to slaughter.

      • Adam Maxwell

        Please note dear readers: the reply to this comment has nothing to do with science based understandings of the world around you. It is based on alternative facts culled from paranoid talk radio hosts and websites.

        • Matt Young

          Please note dear readers: the reply to this comment is political in nature and has nothing to do with the science around you. The earth warms and cools and always has. The comments are based on info from the liberal media and public education. As you get a little older and experience some things you may gain an understanding of the world that isn’t in line with big Ed and big media.

        • Don Dalton

          Science-based understanding? CO2 causes back-radiation: fact. CO2 will warm maybe one degree C total, and this is by no means “catastrophic”: fact. The extent of feedbacks to CO2 warming are unknown: fact, the feedbacks could be positive or negative. Consensus is not science: fact, and perhaps we should be teaching this basic truth to our students. The 97% consensus is false: fact. This would make an excellent research project for students. Denier scientists are paid off: false. Another good research project. Reefs are dying because of CO2: false. Another excellent research project for students, which would tax their ability to do wide-ranging research and think critically about claims– and with that, they’d be a step ahead of many adults.

          • Matthew Davis

            It’s funny…my students do these types of research projects using peer-reviewed journals all the time and yet they come to the opposite conclusions that you do….

          • Don Dalton

            Then you might want to have them read peer-reviewed papers by Richard Lindzen or John Christy … or do you only teach one side of the story? Since when does a science as complex as the climate have only one side? Since when is media truth “the truth”?

            Might I suggest this statement by William Happer? http://www.thebestschools.org/special/karoly-happer-dialogue-global-warming/happer-major-statement/

            Why don’t you have your students research the 97% consensus? They could actually do a new census themselves, couldn’t they? It wouldn’t be that hard.

          • David Bell

            “Might I suggest this statement by William Happer?”

            The statement where he pretended the facts against him do not count because he says so?

            Or the statement via emails where he advised a client on how to hide funding sources and pass off a pal reviewed paper as peer reviewed?

            Let’s use this as a case study. We have an email record in which a researcher gave explicit instructions on how a client can deceive the public, which he freely admits is completely true. What effects does this have on the researchers credibility? What effects would it have if the researcher was being paid to mislead people regarding vaccine safety?

          • Lindzen’s science has been found by other scientists to be flawed. Proven theories win the day, and discredited theories should be discarded. That’s how science works.

          • Don Dalton

            Discredited? Disputed, but not discredited. “Discredited” is a word thrown around like “denier,” and its function is to make us turn off our brains. When someone calls a completely legitimate paper “discredited” then I suggest that something other than science is going on.

            Lindzen’s theory is called the “Iris effect,” and it is finding some support in the observational evidence: https://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v8/n5/pdf/ngeo2414.pdf

            Lindzen has also pointed out, correctly, that observations don’t match model predictions, and this has been confirmed by Christy and others but wholly ignored by the mainstream community. An overzealous cheerleading of theory over evidence, perhaps?

          • So I guess Lindzen is John the Baptist, crying out truth in the wilderness. As long as the science is allowed to progress without political interference, the truth will become evident.

          • Don Dalton

            If were just Lindzen I’d agree, but judging from the signatures on this petition, I’d say Lindzen has quite a few votes. https://cloudup.com/iHcBpTDmCNu

          • David Bell

            No, his views have been outvoted dozens of times over, he has at best 3% of relevant researchers.

          • Matthew Davis

            I don’t actually “teach” my students either side. I teach them how to become better critical thinkers by learning how to sift through the massive amount of information that have at their finger tips today and determine what is a good source and what is a bad source. If you want to understand the scientific perspective on climate change, all you need do is read the journals…it’s not that hard. I have sixth grade students that are doing this and coming to their own conclusions…

          • Don Dalton

            You’re teaching them what’s a good source and what’s a bad source? How do you determine that? For example, in the 2017 paper by Hughes et al, we’re told that global warming is responsible for recent bleaching at the GBR. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v543/n7645/full/nature21707.html Yet in a paper published a month earlier, we learn that rapid sea level fall, induced by El Nino, was responsible for the coral deaths in Indonesia, and we have strong evidence that this same El Nino affected northern Australia sea level, lending credence to the paper that said that lower sea levels, and NOT global warming, were responsible for coral deaths. http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/ and http://theconversation.com/extreme-weather-likely-behind-worst-recorded-mangrove-dieback-in-northern-australia-71880?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Impact%20Report%20for%20James%20Cook%20University%20March%202017&utm_content=Impact%20Report%20for%20James%20Cook%20University%20March%202017+CID_b3384aca5cce1101a5c5d3a9194f88ce&utm_source=campaign_monitor&utm_term=Extreme%20weather%20likely%20behind%20worst%20recorded%20mangrove%20dieback%20in%20northern%20Australia

            So … if you want your students to think critically, ask them to sort this out: what is the real cause of GBR coral deaths in 2016? How can it be global warming, when there is clear evidence that it is lower sea levels due to El Nino? That is what we know. But we then speculate further on this: we say that OK, it was El Nino, but El Nino is the result of changes in weather patterns induced by global warming. But I do hope you point out to your students that this is speculation, and it is fishing for evidence for the theory. You might also point out to your students that there is now no evidence of increases in extreme weather, per the research of Pielke and others, and that extremes would be induced by a differential in temperature gradients between the poles and the equator, which is the exact opposite of what global warming would produce.

            You might also ask your students what is a credible source, when we hear over and over that Antarctica is losing ice, when a recent NASA study says the exact opposite? https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/nasa-study-mass-gains-of-antarctic-ice-sheet-greater-than-losses

          • Matthew Davis

            “Yet in a paper published a month earlier, we learn that rapid sea level
            fall, induced by El Nino, was responsible for the coral deaths in
            Indonesia, and we have strong evidence that this same El Nino affected
            northern Australia sea level, lending credence to the paper that said
            that lower sea levels, and NOT global warming, were responsible for
            coral deaths. http://www.biogeosciences.n… and http://theconversation.com/…”

            You raise an interesting question and this would provide a great lesson in understanding peer review. You suggest we learn that rapid sea level fall caused coral deaths. However, is this what we actually learn given that when the study you posted was minimally peer-reviewed questions regarding their methods were raised. One study does not suggest the authors have the answer, despite what anyone may think. At this point the hypothesis that an El Nino event exaggerated by climate change seems to be better supported by peer-reviewed studies.

            The better question to raise is why would an ecosystem that has evolved with fluctuations in sea level and el nino events over thousands of years be suffering such catastrophic dieback during the 2016 el nino? It seems to me that the peer reviewed science is pretty clear on that.

            In regards to your question about ice in Antarctica, once again there is more to understanding natural processes than one study. This is explained quite well in the article you shared.

          • Don Dalton

            http://www.biogeosciences.net/14/817/2017/bg-14-817-2017.pdf

            Above is a link to the entire paper by Ampou et al. Where do you get off saying that this paper was minimally peer-reviewed? If methodological questions were raised during peer-review, isn’t that exactly the purpose of peer-review, to correct errors? The answer to your question of why would this reef be subject to catastrophic dieback during the 2016 is in the Ampou paper: sea level was at its lowest level in 12 years, exposing reef flats to dessication BEFORE critical sea temperatures were reached. We have further evidence that it was the dessication of reef flats, and not water temperature, in my other link to catastrophic mangrove deaths in northern Australia due primarily to lowered water levels. This mangrove dieback coincided with reef deaths. The significance of water levels to microatolls is well known http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/999/99.

            I don’t have a copy of the full Hughes paper, but I’m told that it makes no mention whatsoever of this unusually low sea level– and the sea level factor is a bit odd, considering that we are continually told that sea level is rising.

            Reefs are dying primarily because of pollution and overfishing. If we apply Occam’s razor and just consider these things that we know for certain are highly significant, then we will find that nearly all coral deaths can be accounted for by these two factors, without any need for warming. Colonies stressed by overfishing and pollution will also be more susceptible to temperature changes and other stresses, and will be less likely to recover. Scientists are looking at reef stresses caused by factors other than warming and appropriating (distorting?) these causes to support their own, alternative theory: catastrophic warming. The Hughes paper is a perfect example of this.

            I agree that there is more to understanding natural processes than one study, but my point regarding the NASA study is that we hear over and over that climate change is melting glacial ice and Antarctica, and yet you’ll hear extremely little about this NASA study. If, instead, the study had shown ice loss, it’d have been plastered over every news outlet in the world. But now … hardly a peep. I would say we have tremendous bias in the media, and in science, to find catastrophic warming under every rock, and on every reef. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

          • Matthew Davis

            The original link to the reef study you provided includes the peer review. Looks pretty minimal to me. Once again, one paper with a questionable methodology that supports your hypothesis about climate change does not mean the debate is over. Where do you get off saying it is? I think there are some fundamental concepts related to the scientific process you don’t understand or simply choose to ignore.

            Furthermore, mangroves are not corals….sea level change associated with El Nino is well understood, but you seem to be trying to compare apples to oranges. Why don’t you just post the blog you are getting this stuff from….

            In regards to Antarctic ice, some regions are gaining ice, some are losing ice. This is a complex area of study and your assertion that “we are constantly being told that climate change is melting glacial ice” is inaccurate. If you actually look at the science of climate change and its impact on glaciers, some glaciers are increasing in size due to increased precipitation, others are decreasing in size due to decreased precip. and warming. The article you posted describes this as it relates to Antarctica.

          • David Bell

            The 97% consensus is true, it is a fact that you are incorrect.

            Every scientific organization of national or international standing holds views opposite to yours: fact.

            Many denier scientists are paid off: fact.

            Scientific consensus is based on the views of researchers who have spent decades studying the relevant issues and reached the same conclusions independently: fact.

            We get it Don, you have a lot of very strongly held beliefs, so do creationists, gay bashers and moon landing hoaxers. Your ability to find someone with a blog willing to tell you what you want to hear does not make it so.

          • Don Dalton

            Please show us the evidence that “denier” scientists are “paid off”: that is, they say what they say solely because someone is paying them to do so. Thank you.

          • David Bell

            Are you pretending that deniers don’t accept funding from fossil fuel organizations or fossil fuel funded think tanks? Or that this is somehow irrelevant?

          • Don Dalton

            If one accepts money for speaking engagements, I don’t consider that “paid off.” I want more solid proof of the implication that denier scientists are paid to say what they say. I’ve heard the phrase “irrefutable financial evidence,” or something like that. Let’s see it.

          • David Bell

            ‘If one accepts money for speaking engagements, I don’t consider that “paid off.”‘

            Really? You have previously stated that no study on vaccine safety is credible if the organization doing the research is even tangentially linked to big Pharma. If paid off is not the word you would use for said vaccine researchers, what is?

            “I want more solid proof of the implication that denier scientists are paid to say what they say.”

            It is called observable data. The denialist movement is primarily composed of shills, whose research (mostly non-peer reviewed) comes directly from those with a clear financial incentive to phony up whatever their corporate paymasters want to hear.

            When the payola vanishes (as it did from the CFC industry), the denialist “researchers” suddenly stop even trying to research. If the reverse were true, as denialists claim, that 97% of climatologists are just lying; they would jump on the denier band wagon every time people elected a denialist government; after all, fossil fuel bucks are just as negotiable.

            Yet this never actually happens.

          • Don Dalton

            My belief when I started this was that catastrophic warming was real. I change my beliefs according to the evidence.

          • David Bell

            Your belief in literally every discussion on science is that every scientific organization with the tiniest shred of credibility is involved in a decades long conspiracy.

            We see this on the issues of AGW, GMO’s and vaccines.

          • Don Dalton

            I will correct my own error: the effect of radiative forcing from a doubling of CO2 itself, without feedbacks, is accepted by the scientific community to be about one degree C. More CO2 will warm slightly more. Double CO2 does not double warming, since CO2 has a logarithmic absorption rate.

      • David Zuckerman

        Paul- I encourage you to actually look at the facts and the science. Even your comment “Did they tell you that the “scientific community” was caught cheating on their findings about global warming?” is inaccurate and that the allegations of “cheating regarding the scientific community findings were taken completely out of context and the claims of such cheating were widely dismissed? The same promulgators of such doubt regarding climate change are using the same tactics as those that said smoking cigarettes was not harmful (when they had evidence that it was), all for the sake of corporate profits (hidden behind language around freedoms etc.) The movie Merchants of Doubt explains much of this is far greater detail. And yes, humans have only been on the planet for a short period of time, but the impact has been clear that the climate is changing (as it always has), but at a greatly accelerated pace due to human activity.

  • Jason Duquette-Hoffman

    Why the choice of the word “mob” in this headline? Sounds like the opposite of a “mob”…..

    • Matt Henchen

      I made a similar comment, which was deleted for an unknown reason. The use of the word ‘mob’ in the title is highly misleading and should be changed. This was a well-organized, peaceful, and orderly event. It was not a protest of any kind – it was quite literally ‘A Rally For The Planet.’

  • Steve Baker

    I am willing to donate my Schwinn Stingray to any of these kids that want to fix our carbon footprint.

    • Robert Lehmert

      And these kids will take your bike and power the hub with an electric motor trickeled-charged by a 320 watt panel and regenerative brakes. Where do we pick up your bicycle?

  • Adam Maxwell

    Thank you VTDigger for moderating this comment board and removing the nasty ad hominem attacks on children. Please also consider adding a disclaimer to comments that pretend there is a debate about anthropogenic climate change, or whether there is a monster named Champ that lives in Lake Champlain.

    • Matt Young

      I guess “ad hominem” is the new buzz phrase, I’m going to try to use it more often. I haven’t really witnessed attacks on children here, but I have seen some comments about adults who indoctrinate and try to portray “attacks on children” as a very sophomoric debate strategy.

      • Peter Chick

        This is an all too common liberal tactic. It gets people to shut up if they think children are being hurt in some way.

    • Don Dalton

      Why is it that we all believe there is “no debate” on climate change, when there is? There are many people fighting very hard against the consensus view and the reason for this is that the consensus view is false. No one disagrees that CO2 back radiation causes more LWIR energy to be reflected back to earth, but what are the feedbacks to this? There is huge debate over feedbacks to CO2-induced warming, and these feedbacks are key: CO2 by itself can only warm 1 degree C, and this is accepted by every climate science on the planet. The feedbacks are uncertain, and the evidence that we seem so eager to ignore because it doesn’t align with theory says that the feedbacks are neutral to negative. Why don’t we hear about this in the NYTimes? Even the IPCC says that the feedbacks are uncertain. So where do we get this “no debate” notion from? Why do we believe there is no debate, when there is? Why do we believe there’s a 97% consensus, when there is not? Why do we believe that denier scientists are paid off to deceive us, when they are not?

      • Christopher Daniels

        There is no debate any longer because the science keeps getting tested over and over again with ideas of those challenging the hypothesis that pumping carbon into the atmosphere will heat up the climate. Scientists will say, did you consider X, and then other scientists will evaluate X, model X, and then publish the results, which refute the inclusion of X. Other scientists will then attempt to replicate the tests for inclusion of X, and when they arrive at the same conclusion that X is to be refuted, it validates the original study. It’s how science works.

        As a result, the number of arguments against carbon impacting the temperature of earth’s climate is shrinking. You can choose to latch on to those arguments, or you can get with the program and figure out how to solve a very complex problem that will seriously disrupt our way of life. One result alone, sea level rise, will force the movement of millions of people here in the U.S.

        • Don Dalton

          You can look it up in mainstream science: CO2, by itself, will only raise temp one degree C– no matter how much CO2 we pump into the air. All climate scientists agree with this– it is one of the few truly “indisputable” facts of climate science. The entire issue hinges on what are the feedbacks to this one degree that CO2 contributes, and there is a great deal of controversy over this. The IPCC and the mainstream media, however, latch onto the most alarming scenario possible, while the evidence, which many physicists have seen and understand, is that model predictions of atmospheric warming are incorrect– and we know this from observational evidence which, curiously, the mainstream wants to jettison in favor of the theory. Rather odd, I’d say. https://judithcurry.com/2015/04/20/aps-members-comment-on-climate-change-statement/

          [Correction– more CO2 (above a doubling) will raise temp above one degree C, but the scientific consensus and established fact is that a doubling of CO2 to about 4W/m2 IR radiation will, by itself and not considering any feedbacks, add about one degree C to earth’s temp.]

          • David Zuckerman

            Don- Who pays for Judith Curry’s blog? It appears that anyone can become a patron…but it is not clear who really is paying for it? As with many issues, there is the easy ability to create “doubt” with a few well placed, well paid deniers. It is what happened with the tobacco industry and it is what is happening with the issue of climate change. A handful of scientists who are paid to create skepticism are widely used and talk in circles to create a louder reality than exists. The science is extremely clear. You can deny it all you want to.

          • Don Dalton

            Merchants of Doubt, that cheap piece of junk propaganda, wants us to believe that the oil industry is orchestrating doubt. Naturally the industry will support those whose views align with theirs. But to say that all off these scientists– the 500 that supported Willie Soon, the 300 that signed on with Lindzen, the retired NASA scientists, the ones who resigned from the APS rather than support bad science– to suggest that these men and women are so low and so craven that they know we’re heading for catastrophe but accept a payoff to say otherwise, is ludicrous. Are you trying to tell us that they will forsake their children and grandchildren for a little money? Where are their mansions? Where are their yachts? This is all absurd, yet we swallow it hook, line and sinker.

            The science is extremely clear on only a few points. The rest is not clear at all, yet we all act as if it’s “settled.” Why are we led to believe that of all the fields in science, one of the most complex is the one that’s the most “settled”?

          • David Bell

            “to suggest that these men and women are so low and so craven that they
            know we’re heading for catastrophe but accept a payoff to say otherwise,
            is ludicrous.”

            Addendum, why is that?

            We know for a fact that many of the same researchers who deny the reality of AGW were so lowly and craven as to take payoffs from the tobacco industry telling people smoking was not causing lung cancer.

            This effected not only smokers, but their families and coworkers. And for that matter, it effected everyone who went to a movie theater, worked in an office or flew on a plane.

            Each one was as lowly and craven as you have described above, condemning millions, their families included to (among other things) a higher chance of developing lung cancer.

            Yet it is somehow just not possible such a thing is happening here despite the mountains of evidence Oreskes and others have pointed to? It just can’t be as far as you are concerned because they say it is not so?

          • Don Dalton

            Then show us the mountains of evidence that Oreskes has that scientists today are paid to deny CAGW. I saw the film twice and did not catch this. Oreskes is big on innuendo and smear but that’s not the same as proof. Please provide quotes so everyone can see this.

            Scientists who go against the warming consensus tend to lose funding, prestige, and promotion. I would expect that this payoff must be substantial.

          • David Bell

            So, you want me to copy and paste the sum total of Oreskes work?

            Sadly we have word limits.

            If you read the book, you would, or bothered reading the dozens of articles her work is based on.

            Oreskes is big on facts and evidence, and every time I provide links showing irrefutable facts related to my point you just deny the validity because the facts fail to conform to your beliefs.

            Scientists who deny the consensus tend to be funded start to finish by corporations who give them millions to lie for them.

            But please, feel free to show me scientists who were told their funding would be cut for producing research contrary to your alleged conspiracy.

          • Don Dalton

            OK, then just prove that “scientists who deny the consensus tend to be funded start to finish by corporations who give them millions to lie for them.” I assume you have actual evidence. In my book, smears without evidence don’t count.

            You only have to provide a few sentences of irrefutable proof, and then the links to back those up.

          • David Bell

            Don, I have presented evidence to you over a dozen times, your response is to claim that it doesn’t count because you said so.

            Either go back and read the data I have already provided or just admit you are unwilling to do so.

          • JohnGreenberg

            “Are you trying to tell us that they will forsake their children and
            grandchildren for a little money? Where are their mansions? Where are
            their yachts?”

            Why would it be “absurd” to believe this about scientists who deny the consensus, some of whom provably HAVE been paid for their advocacy, but then, on the other hand, presumably totally reasonable to believe it to be true of the millions of scientists who get what you called above “the real money?”

            If nothing else, wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to buy off a few hundred scientists than a few hundred thousand or millions?

            I truly don’t understand your position here. It literally makes no sense to me.

          • David Zuckerman

            Interested to find out if the scientists that “signed on” with your examples are trained in the relevant field or not? It was clear that many of the scientists that signed on to some of the documents were ginned up fraud. I certainly respect that those scientists may be leaders in their fields (but I don’t know either way), but the question is whether they are climate scientists/researchers? I appreciate your rapid dismissal of the movie. What do you base that dismissal on? Do you disagree that the Tobacco scientists covered up their research regarding addition and cancer? Are you disagreeing that Exxon had research regarding climate change and fossil fuel use that they covered up?

          • Don Dalton

            Merchants of Doubt establishes that tobacco companies knew of harms from smoking. It also established that tobacco funded some think tanks, including the Marshall Institute. It did not establish that Frederick Setz, for example, was paid to deny the link between smoking and cancer, or Singer either. It is true that the funders didn’t want Setz or anyone else investigating any link. This film did not establish that oil companies were paying Singer, Setz, or anyone else to create doubt about warming, although it implied this was going on without proof.

            In any case, the WWF was initially funded by an oil company. Does this mean that the WWF is beholden to oil interests? Even climate scientists involved in climategate were in line for a substantial grant from oil interests, although at the moment I can’t locate that email. I’m aware of the Exxon controversy and I have no problem believing that they would have covered something up. However, this is a far cry from accusing scientists of being paid to spout propaganda on behalf of oil companies, with no proof whatsoever, and yet this belief is widespread.

            I would love to write a commentary on Merchants of Doubt and go through it point by point. However, I know that such a commentary will not be published.

            Ginned up fraud? That’s quite an accusation. I suppose you have proof of this?

      • David Bell

        “Why is it that we all believe there is “no debate” on climate change, when there is?”

        Because there is not. There is as much debate on this issue as the idea that smoking causes cancer. Which is one of the reason many point out that a number of AGW deniers also deny this reality.

        “Why do we believe there’s a 97% consensus”

        Because there is. Try reading NASA, not to be confused with a retired scientist from NASA.

        “Why do we believe that denier scientists are paid off to deceive us”

        Because they are. I find it ironic that you have previously claimed vaccine research is not to be believed if it was done by an organization even tangentially connected to Big Pharma, yet non-peer reviewed studies bought and paid for by the fossil fuel industry are utterly free of conflict.

        • Don Dalton

          Please provide evidence that denier scientists are paid off. Your assertion doesn’t make it so.

          • David Bell

            Again, are you trying to claim deniers are not getting massive payola from the fossil fuel industry or that this is not a conflict of interest?

          • Don Dalton

            Show this massive payola that everyone says is going on, that’s all I’m asking. Otherwise, admit it’s innuendo and smear. I don’t consider speaking fees a “massive payola,” but still, if you can show that these speaking fees add up to massive payola, please do.

          • David Bell

            Don, I have provided you multiple links, at this point you may as well just admit you don’t bother reading them.

            Speaking fees, research fees, fees just for being on the board of a denialist think tank to lend it legitimacy are just a few of the ways deniers are compensated for their opinions.

            “if you can show that these speaking fees add up to massive payola”

            Since you apparently don’t believe speaking fees are considered relevant…. for no apparent reason. Why don’t you give me a dollar figure on this one.

          • Don Dalton

            You’re allowed to use quotes to support your contention, so that all of us can see.

          • David Bell

            And you are allowed to respond to my question instead of just evading as you did above.

          • Don Dalton

            And you are allowed to show proof to us all instead of just evading as you did above.

          • David Bell

            I did not, I asked you to answer my question, what specific dollar amount and supposed reason for payment are you going to accept as evidence?

          • Don Dalton

            Just lay out the very best irrefutable prove you have.

          • David Bell

            Don, I have done this several times before; you’re response is to claim they don’t pass some arbitrary goal post you made up the moment you saw the evidence.

            So I am asking you to provide an exact threshold of monetary compensation you are going to accept. If speaking fees are somehow sacrosanct, and it is beyond the pale to decry them for the bribes they are, what exactly are you looking for?

          • Robert Lehmert

            Here you go (for openers, there is much more if you want to simply look)

            https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/feb/15/leak-exposes-heartland-institute-climate

          • Don Dalton

            The issue is the payment to specific scientists.
            David has zero evidence he can present to us that specific scientists have been paid off to create “anti-science.”
            However, it sure looks like climate scientists were expecting a rather huge payment from Shell oil: http://di2.nu/foia/0962818260.txt. Can you find anything like this with regards to denier scientists? No? Yet we continually hear that “denier” scientists are paid off.

            You might want to look at further evidence of climate scientists fishing for money from big oil: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/04/climategate-cru-looks-to-big-oil-for-support/

            So are climate scientists “paid off” to create “anti-science”? Why not? If this evidence had been from the denier camp, it would’ve been headline news all over the world.

  • Jane Stromberg

    It certainly seems as though all of this “brainwashing” is not something in regard to these young people, but rather is taking place in the minds of those who believe that climate change is a partisan issue. It is not a partisan issue. It is a threat to EVERY human being on this planet and an even bigger threat to the generations to come. If you really believe that everyone who took part in a perfectly civil and humanitarian march/rally in the the capital of this great state were simply “brainwashed” and just out there to stand in the rain, you must actually lack so much respect for just about anything. The very fact that young folks are being more and more effective at tackling this issue is due partly because you want to live comfortably for the remaining time you have in this life and not be “burdened” by regulations that you are not used to. Guess what, change was designed to be intimidating and scary. And that is the very thing people all over the world are reacting to and standing up against… instead of cowering in the corner in the “safety” of their home.

    • chris wilmot

      Jane- the carbon tax they are promoting is extremely political and partisan in nature
      The marching is fine- so long as it’s in their time- not during school hours when they should be getting an education- not an indoctrination on political activism

      • Jane Stromberg

        But that is EXACTLY my point- it is a common assumption that it is partisan. We all need to learn to keep political differences from grabbing hold of what could be effective cooperation. We need to work together and at least hear one another out without it being an argument right off the bat. I have many friends from both sides of the political spectrum who are worried about the health of our planet.

        • chris wilmot

          The proposed carbon tax is extremely partisan. It’s assuming that a tax will alter peoplesbehavior. That won’t happen as only the rich can buy electric cars or install costly solar panels. The poor also live farther from their workplace meaning they pay more for being poor. The democrat promise is that those taxes will trickle down to the poor through a redistribution of money. That’s unlikely to happen .
          This is a very tangled and complex issue that I doubt the students fully unddstand as they are being presented with a one sided argument. It’s why politics does not belong in the classroom

          • Barrie Bailey

            The Carbon Tax has been working for several years in British Columbia and these so called problems have been taken care of and the carbon has been reduced. It can work for Vermont and we can be the model for other states. Lets not forget that a Republican Governor Douglas instituted the first carbon tax for industry, REGGI, that is working well to reduce emissions in that sector. This does not need to be partison, working together we can easily devise a program that works, and our grandchildren will thank us for it. They will bear the brunt of a climate becoming unlivable.

    • Matt Young

      Jane, the climate changes and it always has. Your negative portrayal of those realist who understand Vermont did not cause climate change is nothing new. It is admirable that children want to protect our environment, it is less than admirable that liberals use these young minds as pawns in their poorly played game of che(ss)ckers.

      • Robert Lehmert

        Matt, the climate has never changed in the way it is changing since the end of the last Ice Age, when human civilization did not exist. The increase in CO2 that ended the Ice Age was much smaller than the increase in CO2in the past 50 years, and that resulting warming melted mile-thick glaciers. Starting as warm as we are today, there will be very serious consequences including possible out-of-control feedback loops where bad things cause even worse things. If our average temperature increases a mere 6 degrees, most of our coastal cities will disappear. fueling massive migrations. Cheer up, we’ll probably (but not certainly) be dead by then, but there is little doubt that humanity will be damaged by our collective failure to look beyond our noses.

    • Steve Baker

      I can only hope for all the trees that were cut down to make the Paper for the Posters. Did they get recycled or end up in a landfill?

      • Robert Lehmert

        Oh no, they’re getting recycled for the next events. There are events scheduled to support climate science on April 22, and a nationwide gathering to bring further attention to climate change on April 29. There are more events scheduled during the summer and being organized for the autumn.

  • Matt Young

    If everyone moved out of Vermont and absolutely nothing took place here for the next 100 years, there would be exactly zero measurable difference in “climate change.” While I appreciate young people caring about our environment (yup, many of us non-liberals do too) I think it’s important for young people to hear and understand points of view from outside the liberal media and liberal education monopoly. Things get warmer and then they get cooler, as history shows, it’s a cycle.

    • Jane Stromberg

      The recent cyclic trends where we see it get warmer and cooler would happen over a long period of time. Not year after year being the hottest year. Also back when there was a warming of the planet, there were not 1.2 billions cars on the planet, diesel fuel did not even exist, nobody was burning oil to heat their homes and so and so forth. You can’t really believe human beings don’t have a climate impact on the planet. That wouldn’t even make sense.

      • John Zuppa

        You are right, Jane, human impact is a major factor in this climate change…not the only factor…but I believe a major one…(possibly The major one)…

        The issue that keeps being ignored in this is… the Population…In the 1950’s when I was born there was less than Half the Population in the US…(that’s only 60 years ago)…

        We will not be able to keep up with the energy demands of a World Population growing at this rate…(Now over 7 Billion)…I believe the fossil fuels needed to provide the energy will continue to destroy the environment….and Renewable Sources will not be able to provide enough energy to meet the demands of a Population increasing this fast…(and Renewable Energy has its’ own destructive potential in sensitive eco-systems)…

        This is one heck of a bind we’re in…Do students today have any ideas on how to slow down or Stop this rapid increase??… (In the 1970s, almost every college (I was at Rutgers) had a ZPG (Zero Population Growth) group trying to raise awareness of this problem…

    • Robert Lehmert

      Matt Young – This is a short piece from NASA which talks about climate change in the past. I’d appreciate your comments on it:

      https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

  • Jason Duquette-Hoffman

    Whether you oppose efforts to reduce human impacts on the climate or support them, these students deserve respect for stepping up for their values. There isn’t a better summation of the Vermont character than Mr. Swaney’s statement: “It’s not about having other people do work for us. It’s on us…” These young citizens are doing work. Well done, all, keep at it.

    • Peter Chick

      It is not there values, these are values the students need to adopt in order to get a better grade.

  • Don Dalton

    I will supply our students with research material so they can investigate the debate on global warming for themselves. No doubt they’ll have no trouble finding mainstream sources to support the consensus view; here are some sources that do not agree with everything the mainstream view says. Granted the details of some of these papers are beyond the understanding of most students and this material is difficult, but if you read the abstracts at the beginning, and the conclusion (or other matter) at the end, you’ll get a good idea of what the paper is about. It does not matter if some of these papers do not support the consensus view: that’s the whole point, isn’t it, to see what the other side says and to weigh the evidence? Or is our education now only one-sided?

    Some overall summaries:
    Richard Lindzen (long) http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/Reference_Docs/Lindzen_2005_Climate_Claims.pdf
    John Christy https://science.house.gov/sites/republicans.science.house.gov/files/documents/HHRG-114-SY-WState-JChristy-20160202.pdf

    Ocean acidification: a very reasonable essay in the Journal of Marine Science: https://academic.oup.com/icesjms/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/icesjms/fsw010

    Sea level rise:
    This paper assumes that warming is real, but finds no evidence of sea level rise acceleration in the US: http://www.jcronline.org/doi/pdf/10.2112/JCOASTRES-D-16-00086.1
    This essay is from one of the world’s experts on sea level, and he is in complete disagreement with the consensus view. As such he is labeled a “denier” simply because of his views: http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/Articles_2011/Winter-2010/Morner.pdf

    Reefs:
    This is a link to a well-known skeptic website, but the summary is good, and if one mistrusts this website one can always go to the actual published research that is linked to in the essay. The essay takes a recently-published paper on reef deaths due to warming to task, and presents evidence that is completely ignored in that paper: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/

    What you should discover is that what is presented is anything but “anti-science.” You should then ask why many adults continually refer to it as such.

    • David Bell

      So, in summary, if a blog tells you something it is irrefutably true.

      When 97% of relevant researchers tell you something, it is to be ignored based on conspiracy theories.

      Nice to know, and please remind me how you feel about this belief system being applied to the anti-gay movement, 9/11 truthers, creationists and all those other “brave skeptics” who don’t hold the mainstream view based on blogs and op-eds? I mean, you’re perfectly consistent in your reasoning, right?

      • Don Dalton

        Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

        • David Bell

          You are welcome, it is always a pleasure to correct your errors.

    • Robert Lehmert

      This might have useful 20 or 30 years ago, but at this point I question the value of sending some imaginary school student on a fool’s errand of endless links and citations about the obvious. After years of being stalled and lied to, they have moved on to activism and planning. There really isn’t much room for debate given the preponderance of evidence coupled with knowledge of some really basic chemistry. Good for them.

  • Emily Daroga

    Thanks to the student for reminding us that climate change is a fact of the world, and not just a mere belief about it. The climate is changing, and not on it’s own accord (and yes, human caused climate change is agreed upon in almost universal consensus by climate scientists -and really, just like we shouldn’t trust the intuitions of politicians on theoretical physics, we shouldn’t trust their intuitions on climate science). So, considering climate change is happening and climate change and human action is if not causing, certainly accelerating the change, we all, in a partisan union (as climate change effects allllll of us) ought to celebrate this wonderful action taken by these youth across Vermont. But as someone said, Vermont alone won’t make a meaningful difference for the overall health of the environment. So despite how great it is to see these kinds of actions taking place in Vermont, how can we extend our extremely progressive, environmentally conscious ideology that is so pervasive here in Vermont to places that have greater overall effect on the planet’s well-being?

  • Paul Richards

    It’s interesting what VTDigger has done to this exchange of ideas and input on this subject. It’s essentially the same thing that happens in our schools and through other media. The powers that be decide who will be heard, what will be heard and what is right and what is wrong. The consensus will rule and those who question it will be silenced. All manner of objectivity is muted.

    • JohnGreenberg

      “It’s interesting what VTDigger has done to this exchange of ideas and input on this subject.”

      Please explain your comment. Has VT Digger silenced you? If not, who has been silenced?

      “The powers that be decide who will be heard, what will be heard and what is right and what is wrong. The consensus will rule and those who question it will be silenced.”

      As I read these comments, I see vigorous debate from multiple perspectives with no one attempting to form any consensus or decide who’s right or wrong. So please explain this part of your comment as well.

Thanks for reporting an error with the story, "Photo gallery: High school students mob Vermont Statehouse for climat..."