The world is warming. Resources are dwindling. Clean water is in short supply. Recycling is ever more important.

Inspired by a trip to the Eden Project in Cornwall, this is a neat trick to save water in your vegetable garden, especially plants growing in pots and troughs, which dry out more quickly. You can get specially-made ceramic widgets, but this is my version made from recycled materials.

I call it the Scrooge Bottle.

Step 1: Materials and Tools

For each plant or pot you want to water, you need a bottle, and something absorbent to fill it with, such as cotton wool, old socks or the off-cuts from your jeans.

No matter how many plants you want to water, you need a knife, a pin and a pair of pliers.

Step 2: Perforation

The water needs to get out of the sides your bottle, but the bottle isn't porous. Hold the pin firmly in the pliers, and have at the bottle. Please, try not to perforate your hand.

Step 3: Absorption

Now the bottle is riddled with holes, the water could pour out instead of just oozing slowly. The bottle needs something to slow down the water's exit. That's what the absorbent stuff is for.

You could use the knife to shred the fabric so that you can get it through the neck of the bottle, or you could cut the bottle in half and stuff the fabric in easily. When the bottle is stuffed, wedge it back together. You may find it easier to wedge the halves back together if you put a small cut in each half of the bottle so that you can scrunch them up slightly to fit together.

Step 4: Using the Bottle

The bottle's function is to get the water close to the roots of the plant and not waste it in the rest of the soil or to the atmosphere. The best way to do this is to plant the bottle close to the young plant, such as when you plant your seedlings out, with just the top of the bottle sticking out of the ground.

You water the plant by pouring water into the bottle. You can use a funnel or a watering can with a narrow spout. If you live somewhere particularly dry or hot, you can save the lid and replace it between waterings to stop evaporation.

As the plant grows, its root system will grow around the bottle, all the better to absorb the water, plus any nutrients you add. This may reduce the roots' ability to support the plant (because they're all bunched up around the bottle instead of spread out to catch "wild" water), so taller plants may need supporting somehow, possibly with canes or netting.

If your plant has a limited lifespan, the bottle can be dug up and used again, but you may want to wash or replace the fabric inside the bottle to prevent passing any infection from old to new plantings.
<p>This is great! Thanks for posting it.</p>
<p>You're welcome - feel free to share!</p>
<p>Back in the 70s when we had another big drought I learned to take a tin can, cut holes in the bottom (top removed), submerge it in the soil, and then fill it with water, which would seep out (more quickly than your idea) and reach the roots. I'm so glad to see some great idea on here about saving water! Thanks!</p>
<p>And for small trees, I used plastic pails that a restaurant received food products in. The same concept - Put a hole in the bottom of the pail, make a shallow hole beside the tree when it is planted. Be sure that the small drip hole is next to the tree. The pails are easy to fill and will collect rain water as well. </p>
<p>I use this system but I only put 1 hole in the bottle. Make a shallow hole beside the plant to set the bottle in - deep enough for the bottle to stay in place. Fill it with water. The water should drip out slowly and keep the soil moist around the roots of the plant. Sometimes it is necessary to enlarge the hole for water to drip out continuously. </p>
<p>I wondered if filling the bottle wth sawdust would be an idea. I generate a lot of saw-dust. It would be easier to fill a bottle ( without cutting it ) than using torn-up clothing. When/if it gets yucky, you dump the contents into the compost bin!</p>
<p>On larger plants, to add stability plant several bottle around the plant.</p>
<p>Put some pieces of thicker water hose into which you have punched a hole with a thicker needle every 4-5 inches or so into the ground, some 8 inches apart and some 2 inches deep, and seal one of their ends with silicone (or bend it over itself and use some metal wire to tie the ends this way), so no water can drip out through the end. Let water slowly drip into the hoses.</p><p>The reason why the hose has to have a larger diameter, say 3/4 inches or more: if smaller, the pressure along the entire length will not be uniform, causing less water to seep though at the bent/plugged end. Of course, you could address this by having successive pieces of hose laid out in opposite directions, but this makes the whole thing more complicated.</p><p>The water will drip out through all the many small holes, but it will not wet the upper layer of soil, it will just slowly make its way deeper, where the plant roots are located. The upper layer of soil staying dry will also prevent weeds from sprouting, and, being dry, will not conduct the heat of the sun very well - both keeping the lower layers cooler and preventing water evaporation from the lower layers.</p><p>True, it's probably more work, but it's the most efficient watering system I'm aware of. Just by looking at it, you'd say your whole garden is as dry as sawdust. If you stick your finger into the ground, you can already feel the moisture.</p><p>In order to get the right amount of moisture into the soil, you need to experiment a bit, and probably not let water be pumped into the hoses all the time.</p>
<p>Ive been using something similar for years in the vegetable garden with tomatoes which require adequate water. I use a 2 liter bottle, cut off the bottom. Bury it upside down (neck down) when I plant the plant. With the cap off. I place one between 2 plants. This waters the soil deeply-where the roots need to be encouraged to grow, while leaving the top dry. I also know, by filling the bottle, how much water the plants have been given. (I usually fill each bottle twice. start down the row, fill each bottle, go back and fill again.) It saves tons of water and effort. </p><p>As a bonus, I found that the buried bottle was a preferred home for toads. They were shaded from the sun by the foliage and cool below ground level. They would hop out when I watered and then go back in. And I got free pest control from all the toads. At the end of the year I pull up the bottles, stack and reuse. I have also used large cans with the top and bottom cut out buried next to the plant. Not as good as the 2 liters, but will work if you are short.</p>
<p>Using dryer lint is a super idea, my 9 lives!</p>
awesome idea. i'm going to put a few in my garden as i go away a lot. my only concern is that if the bottles are allowed to dry out the surrounding soil will dry out faster as there will be a large air pocket, killing the roots around it. so don't forget about them!!! i hope my housemate doesn't.
I'm finally starting my own garden and want to use this but I'm a bit concerned about the absorbent material. Is there a risk of mold or fungus on the material and would that put the root system at risk? I really don't know about gardening so I being really cautious with it.
Any mould that grows will (I think) have already been in the soil, so not an extra risk, but if you're worried, just leave it out. <br> <br>I've not needed it this year at all - despite a drought being declared, we've had more rain than we know what to with.
Thank you for this awesome instructable. I would never have thought of anything like this and it will be very useful for my garden this year! I LOVE IT! My son will enjoy helping me with it too I hope!
Cool, thank you.
Kiteman! In arid agricultural regions in South Africa, farmers use linear drip irrigation techniques, very similar to what you are doing (locally). It basically involves low flow speed irrigation through thin plastic pipes that have very small (but precise openings) every few meters (yards). Entrenching such pipes should scale-up your idea nicely but would require a source of head (pressure) such as a raised water source, possibly a rain water storage tank? Save water, save the planet!
A few people have suggested connecting a bunch of these to pipe-work - you could pour water in one end (from your rain butt or greywater tank) and water the whole lot.
What a valuable comment! I'm working to get a community garden up - no water yet, but a fabulous idea attaching to our city, then catchment system. Thanks!
No, thank <em>you</em> for your kind comment.
I'm on this instructable to find an affordable way to to make an efficient, small home garden. Did not need the reams of climate change debate.
Fair enough, just skip those comments.
Good idea - I a trying to find ideas for watering and this might be just what I want! Thanks for posting.<br><br>One other thing though ... I am sad to see important facts dying away. Last year a Russian hacker published private emails from a British university which was a main center for the global warming theory &quot;research.&quot; The facts caught the researchers with their pants down and forced them to admit they fudged the data. One of the documents even had a researcher saying they could not account for the lack of warming. It is a dead, non-scientific issue as science and history BOTH have disproved it. Greenland - check its history - the vikings farmed areas of it that we cannot farm today b/c they are under ice! It was warmer back then! <br><br>The global warming tool is only pushed by those who are sorry their political tool has been exposed as the farce it is. The politically controlled news media has been trying to force feed us for years knowing that if they talked about it enough, it would &quot;become&quot; fact. In the late '80s they openly called it a theory. A few years later it as pushed as fact. These were the times when they were saying the temperature on Lake Erie shores in PA would be hot enough to grow palm trees by the year 2000. Obviously this did not happen. <br><br>They also - pre 2000 - had their precious proof-because-of-the-hole-in-the-ozone crumbled - the hole closed! You never heat of this anymore b/c, again, science proved them wrong. However, in its day, you the ozone hole was all the rage in the media - you could not watch TV without the subject coming up at least 3 to 5 times an evening. <br><br>Their succesive failures, but political agenda and media support, forced upon them a subtle change... the name of the theory changed from &quot;Global Warming&quot; to the now more politically correct term of &quot;vlimate change.&quot; People were questioning why the hotter temps were not evident - in fact things have been cooler (as they are at present when i write this). So they decided to come up with a way to explain they still were correct by saying that global warming would could cause global cooling. In other words, they were covering their backs that no matter which way the weather turned, they could claim they were right.<br>Convenient... very, very convenient.<br><br>Climate change, aka global warming which brings cooler yearly temperatures as the media tries to brainwash and tell us not to believe our senses - we are actually warming up (Orsen Wells 1984) is a dead scientifically - so lets all please let it rest. <br><br>You can still, I m sure, access online all of the documents that were hacked and read them yourself. You will also find places like Wikipedia are slanted slightly to try to deny the facts -- so do some more-than-surface-level research. As with most media outlets, I am sure Wikipedia's slant will increase as time goes on until they totally deny the truth that this theory is nothing but farce. Who knows, give it 20 more years and they might totally deny the even ever took place.<br><br>Sorry for the book - but as a science teacher, I hate to see this fallacy as it leads to everyone swallowing more government control such as the ridiculous, and unneeded &quot;cap and trade taxes&quot; that they wanted to force on our society. It is nothing but bureaucrats making a larger power grab and robbing more money from &quot;we The People.&quot;.<br><br>
Remember &quot;Acid Rain&quot; back in the 80s? It was going to kill us all, or drive us back into the caves. You dont hear about that any more, do you? Why must we always have a new doomsday scenario every 10 years or so?
Yup... I was conned as a teen about environmental horrors like acid rain and rain forest corruption. Recycling is profitable too. The lesson is to teach everyone to be critical about 'facts,' as everything is relative. If anything, slowing down the birth rate is the best thing for the environment. Then again, we can always build skyscraper forests, literally vertical forests, so it might be sustainable.
Acid rain was never a &quot;con&quot;, and was never presented by honest pundits as something directly dangerous to humans.<br><br>It is still with us, acidifiying lakes and water-tables. Hundreds, thousands of acres of Scandinavian forests have been damaged by acid rain caused by the fumes of British industry. The danger to humans is the knock-on effect of damaging the food-chain at its very beginning.<br><br>I've no idea what you mean by rain forest &quot;corruption&quot;, but if you mean deforestation, that is also very real, and an incredible danger to the planet as a whole, destroying the diversity that has evolved to be essential to the stability of the planetary ecosystem, and accelerating spoil erosion, which in turn increases flooding and disrupts the nutrient balance of the oceans.<br><br>(I'd like to see you try and persuade anybody to reduce birth-rates. China tried to legislate it, and failed miserably.)
The DEGREE to which they pushed it in the States was a con. I do not know about how they pushed it in other countries. <br><br>Yes, it was an issue that needed dealing with. However, the extent to which they were instilling &quot;fear&quot; in us as teachable school-aged children was a con. We needed education on it - but it was almost preached as a religion for some people.<br><br>I think the unfortunate truth is that the media believes in hyping a crisis to the nth degree so they can guarantee someone will act. The only problem is that it creates fanatics and can end up with expensive &quot;solutions&quot; to non-existent problems - such as a carbon tax. And the people perpetrating these scares get to make off with more taxpayer money - while laughing at the laziness/stupidity of the common man who won't take the time to do some honest research/logical thinking for themselves. The &quot;research&quot; a lot of people do is to set out to prove instead of using the scientific method. Someone trying to prove THEIR THINKING to be true can always locate what they are looking for. Someone seeking the truth will find opposing ideas and sort through the actual facts (and see where the facts come from) to try to DISCOVER the truth.<br><br>I wish I had kept a great article done in a Canadian lake - I do not even know which publication it was or the year :^( - other then it being before 2000. They greatly, and deliberately raised the acidity level of the lake, kept records, , and the system recovered within 7 years. They had picks of emaciated fish etc. <br><br>They believed, of course, that the way the system recovered was dilution of the acidic water from incoming, natural springs, rivers, etc. However, the amount of acid they had to initially add to the lake to significantly raise the PH level to the point of damage was beyond what they said acid rain ever could do.<br><br>However, I realize this is hearsay since I cannot cite the source. It may be on the internet somewhere. I do remember, very well, the look of those poor, deformed fish though!
The Canadian experiment was reported in 1987 that I know of. The lake was already acid when they started (pH6.5), and it only needed to be lowered to pH6 before the ecosystem started to collapse, with primary consumers like shrimp dying out first, and then all higher predators following.<br><br>By the time the lake reached pH5.6 (about the same pH as your skin), the exoskeletons of invertebrates started to dissolve and soften, allowing an epidemic of fungal infections. [[other sources report the aftermath - although the pH did eventually stabilise, many species never returned, and others were permanently damaged. In the 1970s, some Canadian lakes had pH levels as low as 4 - more acid than neat vinegar.]]<br><br>(New Scientist, Nov 5th 1987)<br><br>In the same issue, a report on how acid pollution had damaged 16-29% of Europe's forests (varying by country).<br><br>There was understandable, justified panic. Acid rain had the genuine potential to cause mass starvation through the collapse of the food-chain, contamination of drinking water (Lake Baikal, holding 20% of the world's fresh water, was a victim), plus if the foliage damage spread there would be mass crop-failures and (potentially) a massive drop in atmospheric oxygen.<br><br>Fortunately, action was taken, and the risk is being averted. Unfortunately,most people take their &quot;facts of history&quot; from politically-biased mass-media (Fox TV, anybody?), and the modern Conservative spin on acid rain is what you have presented - writing the danger off as hype, easily solved by modern science.<br><br>You may write all the above off as history, but it is still happening - just this week, Texan politicians were caught editing scientific reports to remove references to climate change and sea-level rise. Have a read, see if you still think environmental issues are over-hyped, or if they are a genuine danger that the people you voted for are trying to hide from you:<br><br>http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/oct/14/rick-perry-texas-censorship-environment-report?CMP=twt_gu<br><br>http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-15342682<br>
This sounds like the study I read about. Thanks for finding it/posting.<br><br>The problem, again, is that politics gets behind the scientific facts - no matter what side of the fence someone sits on. <br> <br>But there are true scientists who also know AGW is a political hoax:<br>&quot;Nobel Prize-winning physicist and erstwhile Obama supporter Ivar Giaever has resigned as a Fellow from the prestigious American Physical Society to protest the organization's promotion of manmade global warming fears.<br>Norwegian-born Dr. Giaever shared the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1973 for work at General Electric related to superconductors.&quot;<br><br>http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12797/Exclusive-Nobel-PrizeWinning-Physicist-Who-Endorsed-Obama-Dissents-Resigns-from-American-Physical-Society-Over-Groups-Promotion-of-ManMade-Global-Warming<br>I know nothing of this website except it quotes the Dr.<br><br>In the CRU documents, the damaging emails were &quot;explained&quot; as being out of context. however, the programmer left notes to himself (as is typical of programmers to help ID subroutines/modules) showing &quot;artificial adjusting&quot; of data:<br><br>&quot;function mkp2correlation,indts,depts,remts,t,filter=filter,refperiod=refperiod,$ datathresh=datathresh<br> ;<br> ; THIS WORKS WITH REMTS BEING A 2D ARRAY (nseries,ntime) OF MULTIPLE TIMESERIES ; WHOSE INFLUENCE IS TO BE REMOVED. UNFORTUNATELY THE IDL5.4 p_correlate<br>; FAILS WITH &gt;1 SERIES TO HOLD CONSTANT, SO I HAVE TO REMOVE THEIR INFLUENCE <br>; FROM BOTH INDTS AND DEPTS USING MULTIPLE LINEAR REGRESSION AND THEN USE THE<br>; USUAL correlate FUNCTION ON THE RESIDUALS. <br>; pro maps12,yrstart,doinfill=doinfill<br>;<br>; Plots 24 yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD reconstructions <br>; of growing season temperatures. Uses &ldquo;corrected&rdquo; MXD &ndash; but shouldn&rsquo;t usually <br>; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to<br>; the real temperatures.&quot;<br><br>There is another identical statement further in the code:<br>&quot;<br>;<br>; Plots (1 at a time) yearly maps of calibrated (PCR-infilled or not) MXD<br>; reconstructions ; of growing season temperatures. Uses &ldquo;corrected&rdquo; MXD &ndash; but shouldn&rsquo;t usually<br>; plot past 1960 because these will be artificially adjusted to look closer to <br>; the real temperatures.&quot;<br> <br>in other words data manipulation - note the word &quot;artificially.&quot;<br><br>The source files with the comments that are the topic of this thread are in this folder of the FOI2009.zip file<br>The data files these are in:<br>/documents/osborn-tree6/mann/oldprog<br>in the files<br>maps12.pro<br>maps15.pro<br>maps24.pro<br><br>Another programmers note:<br>From documents\harris-tree\recon_esper.pro:<br>; Computes regressions on full, high and low pass Esper et al. (2002) series,<br>; anomalies against full NH temperatures and other series.<br>; CALIBRATES IT AGAINST THE LAND-ONLY TEMPERATURES NORTH OF 20 N <br>;<br>; Specify period over which to compute the regressions (stop in 1960 to avoid<br>; the decline<br>;<br>Note the wording here &ldquo;avoid the decline&rdquo; whereas in the similar ERU email the words were &ldquo;hide the decline.&rdquo; <br><br>Artificial data manipulation is unacceptable and rips the mantle of science off any study being conducted. This is where politics enters. This is where the fear factor is introduced and personal goals become the actual issue at hand - as with AGW.<br><br>BTW - here is a good place to dig. <br>http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/climategate-30-year-timeline/<br><br>Another thing - I don't watch Fox. I don't look at conservative blogs as gospel truth. I look at both sides of an issue since I am old enough to know I have made mistakes in the past and will continue to do so. I have a mind and use it for research and verification. When I see corrupt dealings, it is a red flag that will normally show true logic and scientific method have been abandoned. This has happened over and over with most media-pushed issues for quite some time now.<br><br>&quot;'You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. What I mean by that is that it's an opportunity to do things you could not do before.&quot; Rahm Emanuel - former Obama Chief of Staff and Advisor to Bill Clinton.<br><br>Educate - yes, but corrupting science to force an issue is unacceptable and has roots in hype/propaganda. <br>
Reducing birthrate is the key, and usually that means empowering women by educating them - see India and education of females - a direct correlation. What one human can consume/waste over a lifetime is tremendous compared with saving one tree.
Politicians can, thereby call for more bureaucracies to pay off their friends. The sad cause of most of our true scinece being stifled and overrun by those with personal, greedy, agendas.<br><br>Yes - I distinctly remember acid rain threats. But once again the &quot;proven, factual, no doubt about it 'science' of the day floundered.<br><br>Its stuff like this - with the rest of the political side embracing this type of stuff, that stifled us from being on Mars by now like everyone back in those days thought we would be. As kids we all just knew this was the next logical step. In fact all the old Sci-fi films from the era just assumed it was going to be true.<br><br>But the unfortunate truth of the matter is the liberal education system kids and (colleges) have been engulfed in the last few decades have raised a bunch of people who embrace anything they are fed without thinking about it. When they do make an honest attempt, a lot of times they just read information that is xeroxed without looking at the source. They then become &quot;knowledgeable.&quot; But unfortunately, most of the knowledge they have is based on politically correct garbage from the past 20-30 years and therefore has no more truth to it than when it was dreamed up as fantasy to aid in stifling critical reasoning skills.<br><br>People under this education system have been taught to reply to those who oppose their views (and what they have been indoctrinated with) by diverting the topic from open-minded, objective debate. They do this by example in training them to use an ad hominem approach w/out ever distinctly defining the term. Since most people (on both sides of an issue) have never heard of the term, and the approach has a natural &quot;push back&quot; reflex reaction from the receiver, the topic of discussion gets diverted and turns into an angry, name calling event. The serious, objective debate is lost and no one learns anything from the other - hence we have what has been referred to as a nation of sheeple.<br><br>Its great to help people see this and watch their reactions when they break out of the bubble they were trapped in.<br><br>
Although yes, the global &quot;warming&quot; you talk about is misrepresented by the popular front for climate change, the fact that our earth is heating up is not a farce. The big indicators are really ice sheets in the arctic ocean and the changes to the antarctic ice cap. By the time we see real temperature changes it will be too late. We watch these early indicators that act as reserves or buffers so that we do not reach a tipping point where we can no longer do anything.<br><br>Also, not all climate change is related to heating and cooling cycles that effect global weather patterns. One of the big ones we are dealing with is ozone which effects the amount of UV light that penetrates our atmosphere. That is something we can already measure the effects of and is a very serious problem.<br><br>The argument you are fighting is a strawman version of the real issue put forth by big business and those who support their interests. The government is not out to get you. The EPA is not 'over regulating' the world's industries. The issue at hand can not be so ignorantly dismissed. I'm sorry that unscientific people such as yourself who approach science only through the eyes of FOX news are able to teach in our school systems.
You make a big assumption which smacks of an ad hominem response (please look this up - it saves a lot of time and effort). This would, therefore nullify your very position. So be careful you are using science and not letting the discussion become an emotional one.<br><br>You assume I approach science only through the eyes of FOX news. The fact of the matter is I do not even watch FOX news. For that matter, I do not watch ANY media news. For 20 years I have been teaching science as it is defined - OBSERVATION and collection of data - resulting in hypothesis (which are NOT in themselves science, but scientific THEORY) - leading to experimentation to DETERMINE the validity of the hypothesis. Note that too many people nowadays use their data to &quot;prove&quot; their proposed theory - in other words they make the data fit their idea (and a lot of this is done without them thinking it over). However, the global warming scientists admitted they fudged their data. Theirs was not even an honest mistake - and they, themselves, said so!<br><br>At maximum, I believe actual scientific research has shown there may have been a .6 degree change during all of these years the theory has been touted. This is nowhere as severe as history records actual, natural, pre-industrial revolution warming trends to have been.<br><br>As to the ozone - thank you for explanation, but I am well versed in what the ozone is/does/et cetera. In fact, as a requirement for one of my upper level courses in college required a rather in depth study into atmosphereic gases, especially ozone. <br><br>I remember vividly back in 1988 when this warming theory was started. I was in the baltimore MD area. Every morning during that excruciatingly hot summer, a fog appeared each morning. The newspapers were reporting/quoting that scientists as saying this fog was due to global warming and it actually was composed of a chemical &quot;identical in composition and structure to ozone, but was not ozone.&quot; WHAT??!<br><br>This was also the year it was &quot;general knowledge&quot; that all summers from then on would be as hot as it was in 1988 and palm trees would grow on the shores of Lake Erie by the year 2000. Um.... yeah.<br><br>BTW - these years were also the time when the newspapers were not ashamed to report that the actual derivation of the global warming theory was a political move towards creating globalism. At the time the papers were saying that the only issue that was thought could initiate a global mindset was an environmental one. Hence the birth of this theory.<br><br>Whatever had caused the ozone hole - which we now know had nothing to do with this theory - is now not working since the hole shut by itself. It was offered as proof of depleted ozone and global warming. It was one of their main babies to support their ideas. Now it is gone. They were saying how the whole earth was going to fry (which it would) since the ozone hole was actually ... growing (oops - another goof). The only ozone problem I ever heard global warming theorists talking about died when the ozone hole closed (embarrassing a lot of &quot;scientists&quot; and causing the media to take it off of prime time and tuck it under the carpet). What other threat have they now proposed to take its place?<br><br>As you can see, and this is just the tip of the iceberg when some in depth research is done, there was ample reason to be skeptical when the theory was born - and there is more than ample reason - especially since some of the top &quot;scientists&quot; who were promoting this theory from the beginning have admitted they lied! These are tangible facts which can be obtained/observed. This is science. <br><br>As to the government not out to get me. Here again is a supposition of motive smacking of an ad hominem response. However, I will let you know i do not cache food and weapons or belong to any secret societies :)<br><br>The fact of the matter, right now, is this theory is political at the highest levels. Congress reviewed the facts enough to say the Cap and Trade taxes were not valid since there are too many valid scientists who say global warming is not scientifically supported exist to ignore the fact that this is just theory. Add to this the admissions of the main people caught with their pants down and congress did not, thankfully, see it as valid enough to take even more out of our taxes to combat it..<br><br>So now comes the political part. The president, therefore, decides to spit in the historic processes set up in our Constitution and bypass congress by influencing the EPA to work his agenda on it instead. If this is not a classic case of politics - then what is?<br><br>What I have prided myself on from the start of my teaching career is not to let politically, or pseudo-scientific matters become the &quot;doctrine&quot; of the classroom. Unfortunately this is exactly what is happening in most schools - people cave into the pc theories of the day. My students have always been presented with evidence from both sides of an issue and told to THINK for THEMSELVES. This is a big no no in a lot of today's educational circles. I will not brainwash children into one position or another. however, when the scientific facts also overwhelmingly show a cow cannot fly, despite what the majority of the populace believes, I am not going to propose to them that they believe cows can fly just because everyone says they can. They need to examine the facts and see for themselves. I also encourage them to look up the background of the facts and people who were proffering their facts.<br><br>There are just too many cover ups, admissions of altering data, refusal to share collected data (only give out hypothesis), and outright political involvement in the global warming camp for it to be science. I do not see this on the other side of the issue. All I can find is history and theory based on unbiased observation and data collection.<br><br>
It is good that you teach your students to examine the evidence themselves and not fall victim to selective bias. But you seem to fall prey to that yourself.<br><br>Greenland may not have been as green as legend has it (might have been some marketing to get more immigrants) but some greening was probably a result of a period of warming during the Medieval period.<br><br>The ozone layer rebuilding is actually a great testament to environmental laws helping to undo damage humans did to our own environment through bans on CFCs and other ozone reducing chemicals.<br><br>Several investigations of the emails hacked from the University of East Anglia found no deception on the part of the researchers.<br><br>And there is no question that observation of our climate has shown a unusual increase in global temperature.
Like I said - if someone tells me a cow can fly - I certainly am not going to be one who falls for it. The certainty of global warming being a farce is just as certain as a flying cow (sprouting wings and flying) - especially since the researches have admitted they made up their data! From what i understand, the the people at this research center were some of the first proponents of the theory in the first place! And THEY say they altered things to make themselves look correct!<br><br>As to the ozone, the ozone hole closed at the very time they experts of the day were touting the CFC's would be reaching the upper atmosphere to deplete the ozone. For some reason in the 80's they were telling us we would not see the ozone DEPLETION make its major impact on the ozone layer until around the year 2000. Guess what? instead the ozone hole shut itself at this time rather than being depleting and opening wider! No, nature showed us man's evil dealings had nothing to do with anything the &quot;experts&quot; positively KNEW was going to happen. In fact the ozone layer more than did this by thumbing its nose at the experts and instead of being depleted, it closed. People back in those days would fight to the bitter end that the ozone hole was absolute, scientific, dogmatic, no-way-around-it, unquestionable, undeniable PROOF of global warming and how dare anyone think any different? I was debating this with people back then about all of this. Yet after 2000, the major cornerstone of their theory now crumbled, the egg-on-their-face theorists and media just quietly stopped stop talking about the ozone hole without even making a major deal about the fact it was gone. This should have been front page news, and after the amazing way they shoved this ozone hole in our faces everytime we turned on the TV, should have at least required a major mentioning in the media that it was gone. But this never happened - it was not politically correct. <br><br>And you say there is no question as to an unusual increase in global temperature when during the last couple of years, especially, actual recorded temperatures have dropped and stayed lower for longer periods of time. Unusually cold temperatures are outside the window as I write this. Just like last year and the year before the locals are wondering where their warm temperatures are. <br><br>Yes - most certainly is a question as to whther or not warming is taking place. Otherwise this discussion could not have been started.<br><br>I personally believe one main problem we even have this theory still with us is that like any other area when dealing with humanity. Objectivity is lost b/c we hate to admit when we have been duped. in fact we attach too much emotional desire behind what we want to be true. As I stated in a previous post, anyone who has shown true scientific fact denying this theory have not had to admit they faked anything and neither have they had to claim political motivation for their data. in fact, if they publish their theories, a lot of the time they have been laughed at by those who are on the side of the personally-admitted-wrong researchers. Some of those hacked emails were from these same researches talking about ideas of how to ridicule and silence people in opposition to their ideas. This kind of person has no business claiming to be a scientist since they have been tainted by their personal desires and inject them into the data. They have left the realm of pure science. <br><br>In my postings I have cited factual happenings and evidence. All I have seen from the other point of view is mentioning opinions of media stations and other &quot;facts&quot; that last year had to be retracted from the people who proposed this theory in the first place. From what I understand, the researchers who were exposed fell victim to this hacker were some of the ones on the ground floor of proposing the global warming theory at the very start. They hatched the idea and last year had to admit they were unscientifically changing the data so it would meet their own predictions and support their theory. In other words, they fell victim to their own pride not wanting to say they were wrong -- until they were forced to come clean by having their private emails exposed thereby giving undeniable proof they new their theories and actions both had been wrong. <br><br>If it were not for them planting the initial seed, then we might not have heard of this already admitted-false by the perpetrators theory. There most likely never would have been other studies by other people trying to prove the theory correct. And, BTW, the wording of that last statement is important. Too many people nowadays seek to prove something they want to see as true rather than exercising pure science and researching to see what the evidence shows.<br><br>How did the oceans retain their temp. when everything else that influences global temps has supposedly risen? How did the ozone hole close at the time when it was supposed to have been receiving the worst damage from manmade CFC's? Why are areas of Greenland the Vikings used for farming presently under ice if it is so much warmer now due to mankind's intervention? Why hasn't anyone who has results showing global warming to be a farce been caught and exposed as faking the data?<br><br>Yes, as with most politically correct, media-propagandized concept nowadays, these factual happenings are ignored or pushed aside ad blanket statements are made such as &quot;there is no question of the fact of global warming.&quot; And this is supposed to solve everything and be the final &quot;scientific&quot; word. <br><br>Science is observation and collection of data to form hypothesis. In the end, to say something is scientifically sound the process/objects/etc. in question must be able to show the same reproducible results. This is far from the case with the global warming theory. In fact just the opposite - again, as cited by those caught with their pants down - is true of this theory.<br><br>If I ever DO see legitimate scientific evidence to show global warming has some truth to it, it will have a lot of things going against it to try to disprove first. If this was ever don, i would GLADLY embrace the idea. Why? Because I am one of those weird people who would rather know the truth than worry about whether or not I am right or wrong on an issue (might explain why my friends used to always call me Mr. Spok). To me the emotional aspect is nothing but added baggage that hides the truth. However, the more research and data that comes to light, the more facts there are to show this farce for what it is. And we have not even gone into the purely political advantages and favors that have been paid out to companies, politicians, universities etc. by the propagation of this theory. <br><br>I still find it amazing we live in a day where researchers admit they made up their own data, they have lied, and people will still defend the very theory researchers/producers admitted was false. As i get older the fact that man never changes is slapping me in the face more and more. i was told when i was a child we were in an enlightened age where scientific truth would lead us to a whole new level. Yes, our toys have become amazing, but the facts are that the name of science has been misused for political agendas and has held us back from even where we could have been.
Again, the researchers did not admit they made up data. Several investigations into their emails came to the conclusion that they did nothing wrong.<br>Here is one investigation initiated by Sen. Inhofe:<br>http://www.oig.doc.gov/OIGPublications/2011.02.18_IG_to_Inhofe.pdf<br><br>And I would be surprised if any scientist actually conflated ozone depletion with global warming. I was young at the time it became a hot topic (ha!) and I remember understanding the possible consequences -- none of which related to warming.<br><br>Global warming is also a wider phenomenon than the weather outside your window and the change in temperature over a couple of years. There is an overwhelming amount of information to go through but here is a good starting spot:<br>http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/start-here/
Actually it was only within a few days of the leak that the researchers didi admit their wrongdoing. However, as i predicted, the media and others were not happy with this and it has become buried in a mountain of &quot;professional&quot; studies on the emails etc. Read the emails youself. I do not need an expert to tell me that when someone says they were not seeing their desired results, so they faked it, and then admitted to it, that the researchers knew what they had done was wrong.<br><br>I downloaded the entire 60 M that was leaked the day it happened and started reading. <br><br>Also, Penn State may have cleared their prof of the Hockey Stick - but he never released his data for others to review. Again, this is is not science.<br><br>Anyone can find links saying global warming is valid. The problem is that the data seen is based upon the very things the reearchers said they faked. <br><br>Again - the water temps staying the same etc - something they will not touch.<br><br>
Ahahaha...you're on the moon buddy.
Although ozone depletion does not significantly cause global warming, it is effected by climate change (though the main culprit in recent history is almost due entirely to CFCs). Coastal hypoxia, for example, changes the biological processes of an ecosystem resulting in a fairly significant increase in nitrous oxide output, which can make its way into the upper atmosphere and deplete the ozone. I believe coastal hypoxia currently accounts for something like 5% of all nitrous oxide, natural and man-made, that enters the atmosphere.
The ozone hole was used by the global warming theorists of the last century to say it was positive proof of global warming. AS in my former post, the CFC theory had to be wrong also b/c when the CFC's were to hit the ozone layer and then make the most damage was when the ozone hole closed. Someone, somewhere needds to revise their thoughts on these issues. i do not think the ozone hole was intelligent enough to take sides on the issue so it could not have repaired itself out of spite :)<br><br>Again though - how do we know any warming trend which might someday happen is not just another natural cycle? We have no idea why they occurred in the past (well - there is theory relating them to cycles of sunspots) so how do we know any one that might occur is not just nature again taking its course? We don't and we can't!<br><br><br>
Debunking climate gate:<br> <a href="http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html">http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/global_warming_contrarians/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html</a><br>
Note there is no mention of the admission by the perpetrators that they falsified the info. Read above comments.<br>
Here's the international publication on the physical science behind climate change:<br>https://www.ipcc-wg1.unibe.ch/publications/wg1-ar4/wg1-ar4.html<br><br>Here's a summary on what id discussed:<br>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPCC_Fourth_Assessment_Report<br><br>Here's publicly available data sets from NASA:<br>http://data.giss.nasa.gov/
This data you list was available at the time the researches admitted they falsified the data - what does this mean?<br><br>If the data was factual, again I ask how we can tell it is not just another natural cycle such as the recorded ones in past history?<br><br>
Because the cycles are changing towards instability and not stability and it is happened at a rate inconsistent with past historical data, ie much more rapidly, and it is also correlated pretty well with man caused events.<br><br>Also, the scientists did not admit to falsifying data. See the other links provided.<br><br>Also, did you even read the data and report?
Instability? How? They were much worse in past history - it was not instability then! <br><br>Yes, I read the reports. I also read when the researchers admitted their falsehoods within just a few days of the leak. However, I knew the media and pc group would hush it up as soon as possible and try to ridicule it with &quot;reports&quot; from experts since it is such a politically hot tool. <br><br>This is the same with Penn State vinidcating their Hockey Stick Graph Professor. Fine - they said he was vinidcated - but why would he never share the data he used when asked for it? This vindication means nothing b/c of his refusal to let others see/review his data!<br><br>And, again , the emails that were leaked show these same professors who fudged their own data were trying to silence researchers who would disagree with them. This is NOT science - this in itself shows their non-objectivity.<br><br><br> <br>
More links to publicly available data:<br> <a href="http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/EnvironmentalData.html">http://www.nesdis.noaa.gov/EnvironmentalData.html</a>
Honestly I won't even read a nonsense rant this this long. The points I did read aren't even true. No admission was ever made to altering data. Collected data is commonly available. I'm not sure where you're getting your facts from. Maybe if you want to actually debate this you could post some links to the research you've done or are referencing? Otherwise I'll have to dismiss you as the last bulwark of scientific reasoning that you seem to be purporting yourself as.
ad hominem - by definition you have admitted you are wrong.
That's not how logic works.
Accepted rules of debate dictate otherwise. The problem is that ad hominem responses come from those who are letting their emotions dictate their thinking process, hence the response is deemed invalid. This is the definition. These people ignore facts and simply state their desired position. However the people employing this self-invalidating technique are rarely even aware of it and, normally , have never heard of it..

About This Instructable




Bio: The answer is "lasers", now, what was the question? If you need help, feel free to contact me. Project previews on Tumblr & Twitter: @KitemanX
More by Kiteman:Paper Castle Valentine's Heart FidgetCube 
Add instructable to: