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
241 - 260 of 1,645 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 23
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#248
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Wallop10 wrote:
I would give Dyson full credit for expertise **he actually has**.
Why is that a problem for you??? Ideology interfering perhaps???
I'm all for letting the dissidents speak for themselves in context. That's the purpose of everythingimportant.org/climategate/ You're opposed to that, which reveals your pompous arrogance in thinking that everyone needs you as an interpreter.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#249
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm all for letting the dissidents speak for themselves in context. That's the purpose of everythingimportant.org/climategate/ You're opposed to that, which reveals your pompous arrogance in thinking that everyone needs you as an interpreter.
There you go again walloped the wallop10. I bet the wallop10 is trying to regroup and get creative with its response. Good Job!!!!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#250
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>to W10;

I'm all for letting the dissidents speak for themselves in context. That's the purpose of everythingimportant.org/climategate/ You're opposed to that, which reveals your pompous arrogance in thinking that everyone needs you as an interpreter.
Actually, you are not qualified to interpret any scientist. You can hardly comprehend a simple post.
PHD

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#251
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

There you have it the spaced out spacedoutblues calling the kettle.

Since: Jan 13

Fairfax, VA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#252
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm all for letting the dissidents speak for themselves in context. That's the purpose of everythingimportant.org/climategate/ You're opposed to that, which reveals your pompous arrogance in thinking that everyone needs you as an interpreter.
You're only reading right wing crap.

Appears to be all you are interested in.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#253
Feb 16, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
It is true that warming is (ironically phrased) snowballing as human induced warming frees up permafrost which further increases warming.
However, the warming that is currently freeing up the permafrost can not be caused by the freeing up of the permafrost which is causing the warming. A can not cause B if B is the cause of A. One must come first.
.
That's what climate scientists call a feed back loop. A causes B and an increase in B causes A.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#255
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#256
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#257
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#258
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#259
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#260
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

Yes folks the wallop10 gets walloped again and again.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#261
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#262
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#263
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#264
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#265
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#267
Feb 16, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

•••