Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

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

There are 1632 comments on the Verde Independent story from Feb 5, 2013, titled Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students. In it, Verde Independent reports that:

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.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Verde Independent.

Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#254 Feb 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
No external source of warming is needed to explain the increase in CO2. Humans activity, even if the Earth would otherwise be getting colder, is sufficient to explain the increases in CO2.
<quoted text>
You are drawing a very bizarre conclusion here.
Ice contains air bubbles, that is why ice is less dense than the same amount of water.
If you were to do this experiment: Encase a piece of ice in air tight plastic, then allow it to melt.
The result would be this: A plastic container which is ~3/4 water and 1/4 air.
That means that as the ice shelf melts, air trapped within the ice is released.
Now, you could say that since the air in that ice has CO2 at 100ppm less than the atmosphere, it's lowering the average, but the amount of atmosphere vs the amount of air reduced from melting ice is so ridiculously disproportionate that the overall effect if you were to melt all the ice would cause an insignificant change to the global average ppm.
<quoted text>
If that were true, then your conclusions would require that the ice shelf for the last 100 years shows a massive increase in warming and no corresponding increase in CO2.
That's not what we see. We see a MASSIVE increase in CO2 over he last 100 years, with that increase growing consistently.
No, that would mean the warming of 800 years ago would be causing the CO2 values of today to go up. It was warm in the year 1200CE.

I happen to think CO2 in our atmosphere is far more variable than the ice core data from antarctica demonstrates. Plant stomata proxy studies show far more variablity.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#255 Feb 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You're only reading right wing crap.
Appears to be all you are interested in.
The only crap is your determination to prevent the dissidents from speaking for themselves and your insistence to slander what you never considered.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#256 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
Plant stomata proxy studies show far more variablity [sic].
Care to post a link for that claim that doesn't come from wattsupwiththat (which, counter to what you've been told, not a science site, but a blog written by cranks and charlatans for an audience of idiots)?

And get a spell checker for God's sake.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#257 Feb 16, 2013
A simple article that helps to see how AGW is affecting Arctic Sea ice. At the current rate the sea will be open in the summer within ten years:

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/02/14/1...

It is not just the surface area that matters, it is the overall volume of ice that must be considered.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#258 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
That's what climate scientists call a feed back loop. A causes B and an increase in B causes A.
Wrong.

Warming caused the Arctic to change from a sink to a source.

It is just beginning to add feedback.

It cannot explain the warming of the previous decades.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#259 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No, that would mean the warming of 800 years ago would be causing the CO2 values of today to go up. It was warm in the year 1200CE.
I happen to think CO2 in our atmosphere is far more variable than the ice core data from antarctica demonstrates. Plant stomata proxy studies show far more variablity.
Think about your argument.

You are claiming that warming causes CO2 by unlocking permafrost among other things.

You are then suggesting that warming in 1200 therefore caused CO2 levels today.

Which means that you believe that the warmth that happened in 1200 didn't unlock permafrost then, but rather unlocked it now.

How does that work?
PHD

Overton, TX

#260 Feb 16, 2013
Yes folks the wallop10 gets walloped again and again.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#261 Feb 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Think about your argument.
You are claiming that warming causes CO2 by unlocking permafrost among other things.
You are then suggesting that warming in 1200 therefore caused CO2 levels today.
Which means that you believe that the warmth that happened in 1200 didn't unlock permafrost then, but rather unlocked it now.
How does that work?
Not my argument. The ice core data shows a lag time of about 800 years temps go up and 800 years later co2 goes up. You made the statement about the last 100 years. The reference to 1200CE is because it is 800 years ago.

No, I don't think that the warming of 1200 didn't unlock the permafrost. If it was as warm as some think it was, then whatever ice melt we see today would have happened then as well.

My understanding is that melting permafrost unlocks methane. Not as prevalent in our atmosphere but a much stronger greenhouse gas than co2.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#262 Feb 16, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
Not my argument. The ice core data shows a lag time of about 800 years temps go up and 800 years later co2 goes up. You made the statement about the last 100 years. The reference to 1200CE is because it is 800 years ago.
No, I don't think that the warming of 1200 didn't unlock the permafrost. If it was as warm as some think it was, then whatever ice melt we see today would have happened then as well.
My understanding is that melting permafrost unlocks methane. Not as prevalent in our atmosphere but a much stronger greenhouse gas than co2.
Nowhere in the ice core data does it show temps or CO2 levels as high as they are currently.

Even if there were an actual statistical correlation (which would require a completely unknown mechanism at which you have yet to even speculate) that could show that some change in temp at one point relates to a change in CO2 800 years later, that would explain the persistent increases in temp today which coincide with CO2 levels rising TODAY.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#263 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The only crap is your determination to prevent the dissidents from speaking for themselves and your insistence to slander what you never considered.
You need to apply your rhetoric in reverse.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

#264 Feb 16, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Nowhere in the ice core data does it show temps or CO2 levels as high as they are currently.
Even if there were an actual statistical correlation (which would require a completely unknown mechanism at which you have yet to even speculate) that could show that some change in temp at one point relates to a change in CO2 800 years later, that would explain the persistent increases in temp today which coincide with CO2 levels rising TODAY.
Right, ice data doesn't show temps or CO2 at today's levels. Both the temps and the CO2 values are from the antarctic. Nowhere on the earth is going to have antarctica's temperatures.

Not 'even if there is a statistical correlation' there is a statistical correlation between temps and co2 in the ice core data. This is complex and you will not understand if you do not read one of the studies.

Here's a look at greenland data as compared with today's greenland temperatures.

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/wp-co...

http://www.australianclimatemadness.com/2012/...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#265 Feb 16, 2013
Dude wrote:
Your sentence contradicts itself.
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>Thank you for your input. See even you can respond without the use of calling names. I do disagree with your statement.
Actually as you can see there was no name-calling in that post of mine. I merely pointed out your grammatical error.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#266 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm here to promote what accomplished dissident scientists like Miklós Zágoni, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson are saying.
"Future generations will wonder in bemused amazement that the early 21st century's developed world went into hysterical panic over a globally averaged temperature increase of a few tenths of a degree, and, on the basis of gross exaggerations of highly uncertain computer projections combined into implausible chains of inference, proceeded to contemplate a roll-back of the industrial age." -- Richard Lindzen.
Yes, we know that the Shoobmeister is fond of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, even if the authority might actually disagree with Shoob if they happened to come across his BS.
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You don't know that. There is no such law of physics. You just believe all the hysteria that you've been told.
As someone who thinks Goddidit with magic is relevant to science physics in particular, and indeed science as a whole is utterly irrelevant to you.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#267 Feb 16, 2013
Wallop10 wrote:
<quoted text>
You need to apply your rhetoric in reverse.
I was not exaggerating. I was speaking the truth which you're trying to avoid.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#268 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>The only crap is your determination to prevent the dissidents from speaking for themselves and your insistence to slander what you never considered.
Actually the dissidents are NOT being shutdown. Otherwise you would never have even HEARD of "climategate".

Duh.

Some of whom you like to call global warming dissidents have had peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject.

It's just that they are outnumbered by science papers of the opposite position.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#269 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I was not exaggerating. I was speaking the truth which you're trying to avoid.
Truth is subjective.

In your case "truth" resembles something akin to Bizzarro-world.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#270 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, we know that the Shoobmeister is fond of the logical fallacy of appeal to authority, even if the authority might actually disagree with Shoob if they happened to come across his BS.
I'm no expert on global warming but in this instance I'm willing to accept what dissidents like Miklós Zágoni, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson are saying.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#271 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
Some of whom you like to call global warming dissidents have had peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject.
It's just that they are outnumbered by science papers of the opposite position.
Cowards always side with the larger group. In this instance however, they are obviously grossly mistaken. And it doesn't take much intuition in this case to know that the dissidents are absolutely right.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#272 Feb 16, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm no expert on global warming but in this instance I'm willing to accept what dissidents like Miklós Zágoni, Richard Lindzen and Freeman Dyson are saying.
And I exposed all the weaknesses of each one.
You just like the ideology and care nothing for the science.

Lindzen was the only one who actually "tried" to use actual science to support his skepticism. Too bad he failed.

The other two are looney tunes. Dyson is purely using his "gut". I'd rank him the worst of the lot.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

#273 Feb 16, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually the dissidents are NOT being shutdown. Otherwise you would never have even HEARD of "climategate".
All the investigations showed there was no scandal.
Just a bunch of personal emails the right wing had taken out of context.
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Some of whom you like to call global warming dissidents have had peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject.
It's just that they are outnumbered by science papers of the opposite position.
Can't think of any. Roy Spencer's last paper was just discredited. His editor resigned in disgrace when the peer review came out. OF coruse it was a satellite journal, so they weren't expecting him to have fudged the data (which NASA/NCAR proved comparing his UAH results with weather balloon data).

Here is Scientific American.

Climate Expertise Lacking among Global Warming Contrarians
A majority of scientists who dispute global warming lack the climatological expertise to do so
By David Biello June 22, 2010 37

The new analysis, published June 21 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, surveyed 908 researchers publishing in scientific journals from around the world on the subject and found that not only were those in the unconvinced camp less expert in the field, they were also less likely to be trained in the climate science.

"A physicist or geologist with a PhD is a scientist, but not a climate scientist and thus their opinions on complex climatological issues is not likely to be expert opinion," says William Anderegg, lead author of the analysis and a biologist-in-training at Stanford University. "Cardiologists, for example, don't prescribe chemotherapies for cancer, nor do oncologists claim expertise at heart surgery—they are all doctors, of course, but not experts outside of a narrow specialty."

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form 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.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 min Subduction Zone 168,858
News Aliens and evolution (Jun '12) 49 min huh 6,214
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 56 min kenedy njoroge 141,817
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr dirtclod 19,774
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 6 hr Paul Porter1 13
How can we prove God exists, or does not? Thu Paul Porter1 197
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) Thu Paul Porter1 561
More from around the web