Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

Feb 5, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Verde Independent

Saying students are getting only one side of the debate, a state senator wants to free teachers to tell students why they believe there is no such thing human-caused "global warming.' The proposal by Sen.

Comments

Showing posts 1 - 20 of1,624
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#1
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

Are there 2 sides to climate change?

It is measurably happening, whatever the financial implications of the cause is irrelevant, who cares?

What needs to be done is defences built to alleviate the devastation it is starting to bring and sloping shoulders and pointing fingers arguing “Humans did it”.“Wasn’t us” when vast areas are getting flooded, whole communities are loosing their homes, hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones are getting more devastating will hot help.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#2
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Yes there are 2 sides. There is real science and scientific science fiction side. Would you agree if the human factor was eliminated the hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and weather devastation would continue?
LowellGuy

Lawrence, MA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#3
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

PHD wrote:
Yes there are 2 sides. There is real science and scientific science fiction side. Would you agree if the human factor was eliminated the hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and weather devastation would continue?
With equal frequency and ferocity? No.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#4
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
<quoted text>
With equal frequency and ferocity? No.
Explain your No.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#5
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

PHD wrote:
Yes there are 2 sides. There is real science and scientific science fiction side. Would you agree if the human factor was eliminated the hurricanes, tornadoes, cyclones and weather devastation would continue?
See LowellGuy - With equal frequency and ferocity? No.

Nor would the unheard of flooding in northern Europe or the unusually excessive monsoon flooding in Asia or the excessive temperatures in Australia nor would the melting of the ice caps be so rapid. Etc, etc.

Historically global climate change has occurred over hundreds, even thousands of years, there is considerable evidence for this. This event we are facing is in the realms of 10 of years and does not correspond to earths natural cycles. The only difference, the ability for the first time for human intervention

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“

However as I said, looking for a cause is not solving the problem. You may argue all you wish but that makes no difference to the fact that it is happening – NOW.
sickofit

Hayfield, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#6
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Just teach the truth which is GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL................Why teach a lie....
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#7
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

LowellGuy wrote:
With equal frequency and ferocity? No.
//////////
'phud fetid feces face fiend' fluffed:
Explain your No.
//////////
litesong wrote:
LowellGuy...... No need to explain anything to 'phud fetid feces face fiend'. It has no mathematics, engineering, or science degrees to understand anything, even if it did want to give up its re-pubic-lick-un unscientific AGW denier stance, which it doesn't. It doesn't even have upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule deegreee, which it might NOT have, either!

Anyhow, it has no teaching certificate to give out homework.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#8
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

4

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
See LowellGuy - With equal frequency and ferocity? No.
Nor would the unheard of flooding in northern Europe or the unusually excessive monsoon flooding in Asia or the excessive temperatures in Australia nor would the melting of the ice caps be so rapid. Etc, etc.
Historically global climate change has occurred over hundreds, even thousands of years, there is considerable evidence for this. This event we are facing is in the realms of 10 of years and does not correspond to earths natural cycles. The only difference, the ability for the first time for human intervention
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“
However as I said, looking for a cause is not solving the problem. You may argue all you wish but that makes no difference to the fact that it is happening – NOW.
Climate changes are frequently dramatic and what we have seen recently is not different from past events.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#9
Feb 6, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate changes are frequently dramatic and what we have seen recently is not different from past events.
Science says it IS different in the scope and speed of the changes.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#10
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Climate changes are frequently dramatic and what we have seen recently is not different from past events.
Not quite true. In fact the scientific evidence now would consider your statement a down right lie. However if it helps you sleep at night feel free to continue deceiving yourself.

I re-quote for the hard of understanding
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“

Here is a piece form NASA using evidence for the last 5 events going back 400,000 years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

I assume that you live far enough from the coast for this not to be a problem for you.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#11
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite true. In fact the scientific evidence now would consider your statement a down right lie. However if it helps you sleep at night feel free to continue deceiving yourself.
I re-quote for the hard of understanding
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“
Here is a piece form NASA using evidence for the last 5 events going back 400,000 years.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
I assume that you live far enough from the coast for this not to be a problem for you.
The graph you posted is from the antarctic ice core data prior to 1900 and from current readings after that.

This is one of the problems with climate science. The antarctic ice core data is a proxy study of a singular location in the world. Measuring CO2 at Vostok is valid for vostok.

CO2 is a well distributed gas, at low elevations and low latitudes. CO2 is higher in daytime and lower at night. It is higher in the summer, lower in the winter.

Vostok is at 11,000 ft elevation, 95*S latitude, it is nighttime 6 months of the year and always winter. That makes the level of CO2 at Vostok less than the levels you would find at the equator. For example Paris, can record CO2 levels at 900ppm during daytime summertime, with the surrounding countryside at 415ppm. Phoenix record levels at 600ppm summertime daytime and Phoenix is a lot hoter than Paris. The higher your elevation, the less CO2 you'll have in the atmosphere. Think humidity, sea level lots of it; mountains, not so much.

In addition to the location of the Vostok study, there is the function of collecting data from gases sequestered in the ice. The reason we don't have last year's data from Vostok is that it takes time and presssure to sequester the gases in the ice. Approx 70 years, during that time the gases in the ice move. Because they are gases they move through the ice so over time there is a natural averaging of the ice content.

I am a big fan of the ice core data and suggest you take a look at some of the studies that have been conducted to get an understanding of what you are looking at when you see the graphs.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#12
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
Science says it IS different in the scope and speed of the changes.
Show me what you are referring to.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#13
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The graph you posted is from the antarctic ice core data prior to 1900 and from current readings after that.
This is one of the problems with climate science. The antarctic ice core data is a proxy study of a singular location in the world. Measuring CO2 at Vostok is valid for vostok.
CO2 is a well distributed gas, at low elevations and low latitudes. CO2 is higher in daytime and lower at night. It is higher in the summer, lower in the winter.
Vostok is at 11,000 ft elevation, 95*S latitude, it is nighttime 6 months of the year and always winter. That makes the level of CO2 at Vostok less than the levels you would find at the equator. For example Paris, can record CO2 levels at 900ppm during daytime summertime, with the surrounding countryside at 415ppm. Phoenix record levels at 600ppm summertime daytime and Phoenix is a lot hoter than Paris. The higher your elevation, the less CO2 you'll have in the atmosphere. Think humidity, sea level lots of it; mountains, not so much.
In addition to the location of the Vostok study, there is the function of collecting data from gases sequestered in the ice. The reason we don't have last year's data from Vostok is that it takes time and presssure to sequester the gases in the ice. Approx 70 years, during that time the gases in the ice move. Because they are gases they move through the ice so over time there is a natural averaging of the ice content.
I am a big fan of the ice core data and suggest you take a look at some of the studies that have been conducted to get an understanding of what you are looking at when you see the graphs.
blah blah you are wrong.

All you write is meaninless trash. For example, you posted:[1] CO2 is a well distributed gas,[2] at low elevations and low latitudes.[3] CO2 is higher in daytime and lower at night. It is higher in the summer, lower in the winter.

Any rational person with a little bit of science would know the parts I marked with [1] to [3] are in conflict with each other. Because you have no science you fail yet you argue here to defeat scientists.

LOL.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#14
Feb 7, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
The graph you posted is from the antarctic ice core data prior to 1900 and from current readings after that.
This is one of the problems with climate science. The antarctic ice core data is a proxy study of a singular location in the world. Measuring CO2 at Vostok is valid for vostok.
CO2 is a well distributed gas, at low elevations and low latitudes. CO2 is higher in daytime and lower at night. It is higher in the summer, lower in the winter.
Vostok is at 11,000 ft elevation, 95*S latitude, it is nighttime 6 months of the year and always winter. That makes the level of CO2 at Vostok less than the levels you would find at the equator. For example Paris, can record CO2 levels at 900ppm during daytime summertime, with the surrounding countryside at 415ppm. Phoenix record levels at 600ppm summertime daytime and Phoenix is a lot hoter than Paris. The higher your elevation, the less CO2 you'll have in the atmosphere. Think humidity, sea level lots of it; mountains, not so much.
In addition to the location of the Vostok study, there is the function of collecting data from gases sequestered in the ice. The reason we don't have last year's data from Vostok is that it takes time and presssure to sequester the gases in the ice. Approx 70 years, during that time the gases in the ice move. Because they are gases they move through the ice so over time there is a natural averaging of the ice content.
I am a big fan of the ice core data and suggest you take a look at some of the studies that have been conducted to get an understanding of what you are looking at when you see the graphs.
Yes and yes, So you mean ice core samples to the current time? Your point is what? That collecting data laid pre to 1900 is different from the data laid post 1900 or are you simply trying to obfuscate the data? Methods (and manpower) change, the data does not.

Sorry I am not quite getting your rant here, the CO2 data is different at day than at night? Or different in summer than winter or different from one year to the next? Or form one century to the next? Yes that’s why I posted that nasa page to show the differences from century to century, from millennium to millennium and of course the RAPID increase last century. Sorry if the rise shocked you.

Yes CO2 is a heavy gas, again, you point is what. You say CO2 is a well distributed gas then make claims at that certain specific points in time it is not well distributed. Again O am confounded by your argument, it means what?

What you are a fan of is irrelevant to the fact that
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“

Here’s a couple from the northern hemisphere.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/...

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/286/5442/11...

P.S. The Arctic ice sheet is pretty close to sea level.
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#15
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

More scientific science fiction. The real scientist diagree.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#16
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

PHD wrote:
More scientific science fiction. The real scientist diagree.
Nope, the dinosaurs disagree, just like you do, apparently

“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from scepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect”

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#17
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope, the dinosaurs disagree, just like you do, apparently
“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from scepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect”
Yup, take it from a former skeptic. The more I looked at the claims of workers in that field the more I saw that they were correct.

When you seriously start asking yourself if each step of their work is correct, and all you can come up with for an answer is "yes", then it should not take too long to change your mind. Worse yet if you start to look at the people arguing against the concept of AGW and compare it to other fringe groups like creationist or even 911 Troofers you will see an amazing similarity.

I wish it was not so but the climate scientists are right. And if you are a skeptic that is fine. There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic. Of course to be a skeptic you have a onus placed upon you. As a skeptic, to maintain that title, you must investigate the science of both sides. It won't take you too long to investigate the science of the anti AGW crowd since there is not too much of it. People who actually start to research this topic quickly learn the truth.

In fact the concept of AGW is very similar to evolution. There are no well educated honest creationists.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#18
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes and yes, So you mean ice core samples to the current time? Your point is what? That collecting data laid pre to 1900 is different from the data laid post 1900 or are you simply trying to obfuscate the data? Methods (and manpower) change, the data does not.
Sorry I am not quite getting your rant here, the CO2 data is different at day than at night? Or different in summer than winter or different from one year to the next? Or form one century to the next? Yes that’s why I posted that nasa page to show the differences from century to century, from millennium to millennium and of course the RAPID increase last century. Sorry if the rise shocked you.
Yes CO2 is a heavy gas, again, you point is what. You say CO2 is a well distributed gas then make claims at that certain specific points in time it is not well distributed. Again O am confounded by your argument, it means what?
It means that the graph you are referring to represents data collected from one location on earth. Just like the temperature of yesterday in your area does not represent the temperature of the earth yesterday, the ice core data represents the values in antarctica, not the rest of the earh.

Yes, CO2 measured in the same place during the day will be higher than if measured at night. If measured in the summer, CO2 will be higher than if measured in the winter. CO2 values vary depending on the condition at the time of measurement.

In antarctica, it is winter all the time, so CO2 values will be lower when measured in winter. This is important because CO2 values in the ice core are no more indicative of worldwide CO2 values than the temps measured in the ice core represent world temps.

'Well distributed' is a relative value. It is well distributed at low elevations and low latitudes. It is not well distributed at high elevations and high latitudes. Vostok is both high elevation and high latitude. The result is that CO2 at vostok is not the same as CO2 values in Paris.

The ice core provides with a look at how climate has varied over the last 700,000 years. This is incredible information. The ice core shows us a pattern of activity, it does not show the world's temps over the last 700,000 years, it shows antarctica temps over the last 700,000 years.

And ice core data is different for the arctic. Greenland because it is impacted by precession is different from antarctica. Here's a quick look at the comparison. Notice how the antarctic temps lead the arctic temps.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#19
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Yup, take it from a former skeptic. The more I looked at the claims of workers in that field the more I saw that they were correct.
When you seriously start asking yourself if each step of their work is correct, and all you can come up with for an answer is "yes", then it should not take too long to change your mind. Worse yet if you start to look at the people arguing against the concept of AGW and compare it to other fringe groups like creationist or even 911 Troofers you will see an amazing similarity.
I wish it was not so but the climate scientists are right. And if you are a skeptic that is fine. There is nothing wrong with being a skeptic. Of course to be a skeptic you have a onus placed upon you. As a skeptic, to maintain that title, you must investigate the science of both sides. It won't take you too long to investigate the science of the anti AGW crowd since there is not too much of it. People who actually start to research this topic quickly learn the truth.
In fact the concept of AGW is very similar to evolution. There are no well educated honest creationists.
Nice, concise, as I expect from you.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#20
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that the graph you are referring to represents data collected from one location on earth. Just like the temperature of yesterday in your area does not represent the temperature of the earth yesterday, the ice core data represents the values in antarctica, not the rest of the earh.
Yes, CO2 measured in the same place during the day will be higher than if measured at night. If measured in the summer, CO2 will be higher than if measured in the winter. CO2 values vary depending on the condition at the time of measurement.
In antarctica, it is winter all the time, so CO2 values will be lower when measured in winter. This is important because CO2 values in the ice core are no more indicative of worldwide CO2 values than the temps measured in the ice core represent world temps.
'Well distributed' is a relative value. It is well distributed at low elevations and low latitudes. It is not well distributed at high elevations and high latitudes. Vostok is both high elevation and high latitude. The result is that CO2 at vostok is not the same as CO2 values in Paris.
The ice core provides with a look at how climate has varied over the last 700,000 years. This is incredible information. The ice core shows us a pattern of activity, it does not show the world's temps over the last 700,000 years, it shows antarctica temps over the last 700,000 years.
And ice core data is different for the arctic. Greenland because it is impacted by precession is different from antarctica. Here's a quick look at the comparison. Notice how the antarctic temps lead the arctic temps.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
You yourself stated that “CO2 is a well distributed gas,” But only as distributed as you want it to be – right?

By it’s very nature the data from ice cores is not collected for any particular time of day or night but over HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS of years. Your time of day argument is an irrelevant piece of fluff designed to obfuscate the fact

The high above sea level is also irrelevant, the data was taken from the same area and compared to data from the same area.

There are other studies for the Northern hemisphere and true the Antarctic data does not show the temperate in Manchester or Miami, who cares? The overall temperature change reflects the global temperature change.

I find it rather amusing that you can makes claims and then contradictory claims both to defend the same point.

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 1 - 20 of1,624
< prev page
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

13 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 5 min polymath257 126,911
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 min polymath257 105,858
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 1 hr MikeF 1,236
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr polymath257 168,476
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 9 hr sant 13,467
Posting for Points in the Evolution Forum (Oct '11) 21 hr ChristineM 13,936
Science News (Sep '13) 21 hr nanoanomaly 2,670
•••
•••
•••
•••