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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#314 Feb 18, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
If this is a graphic of CO2 distribution, then there's a whole lot more blue and green than there is red or yellow.
Actually, CO2 is currently approx 400ppm, that means there is not CO2 everywhere in the atmosphere. Of every million parts of the atmosphere, only 400 parts in each million are CO2. Without a descritpion of the graphic, we don't know what the colors represent.
The reference for your graphic would be appreciated, I would like to see how the graphic was developed and the data set used. Maybe they have similar graphics for different times of the year, that would be interesting too.
My link was provided as an example of colour coding, it is not relevant to climate change but the technology and processes to provide the results. The data used was CMB data from the Wmap satellite (as specified). Years are not relevant in the context of the CMB, billions of light years are. Just do a google for CMB and/or WMAP

No it does not mean that at all, you are once again attempting to obfuscate with irrelevancies. Approximately 400ppm means approximately 400ppm. That figure makes no reference to “everywhere” funnily enough it does not even make reference to anywhere. Where is co2 approximately 400ppm? Is this approximately 400ppm at sea level, 1000ft, 10,000ft etc?

CO2 is heavier than air, the lower the altitude the higher the concentration, quoting a concentration without the altitude is just one more of your irrelevancies. Same applies to wind data and many other variables.

The difference is that the graphic I linked to was created for the job in hand and relevant as an example of colour coding The graphic you produced was not relevant to the measured CO2 levels spanning thousands of years.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#315 Feb 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
Modern temperature records (last 100 years or so)
Paleoclimatic temperature data (last few thousand years or so)
Satellite data
Borehole analysis
Glacial melt observations
Sea ice melt
Sea level rise
Permafrost melt
All show climate change, those representing older data show a rapid and unprecedented rise coexisting with the human emission of co2.

Here are some of the organisations that accept human instigated global warming is real and scientifically well-supported, NASA, NAS, RS, NOAA, IPCC, EPA, AGU, AMS, AIP, CMOS, NCAR, etc, etc

Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#316 Feb 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
There have been plenty of experimental tests, just not global scale tests.

Making this claim is like saying we've done no tests to verify that two points are on opposite sides of the Earth because we haven't drilled a hole between them.
Gillette

Fairfield, IA

#317 Feb 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Every major scientific institution dealing with climate, ocean, and/or atmosphere agrees that the climate is warming rapidly and the primary cause is human CO2 emissions
And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.

Really despicable. Shame on him.
litesong

Everett, WA

#318 Feb 18, 2013
Gillette wrote:
And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has a two-bit oil can job around computers(truck dispatcher?). Thus, he needed little money to get him to type for AGW denier oily pumpers.

'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' got a raise to a 2-&-a-half-bit oil can job.

“Headline already in use”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#319 Feb 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
There have been plenty of experimental tests, just not global scale tests.
Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.

.
Nuggin wrote:
Making this claim is like saying we've done no tests to verify that two points are on opposite sides of the Earth because we haven't drilled a hole between them.
Nobody is suggesting mitigating the Earth's geography; if you did then I'd ask for experimental tests too.

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#320 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.
Basic chemistry at the high school level shows that reducing the amount of carbon leaving facilities like coal plants reduces the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#321 Feb 19, 2013
Gillette wrote:
<quoted text>
And BrianG has admitted elsewhere that he is PAID to come on the Internet and sow the seeds of doubt about that scientific consensus.
Really despicable. Shame on him.
Maybe he should ask a raise, in case he missed reading about the economic effects.

Global? The USA is frankly the greatest polluter.
But lets make a start. Oceans are all de-iced connected now (almost unprecedented) But therefore we can allready say we cover about 60-70% of the earth. A list of indicators:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/indicators/

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#322 Feb 19, 2013
For some reason unbeknownst to me they also discount the effect of the earths defence mechanisms as a response mechanism.
And as an aside, you do not need longterm studies. If too much CO2 get's in the ocean and the temperature raises just a few degrees we allready could have an serious problem with added methane being released and reduced capacity to absorb CO2. So the spikes worry me more, honestly. Though in the long term you would get the same scenario.
This site get's technical especially in the comment section.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/earth-albedo-...
The gist is that the CERES data was not properly processed.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#323 Feb 19, 2013

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#324 Feb 19, 2013
Indeed global. Here a science journal published paper from Nigeria. Boreholes etc. and see the post by Christine M for the full summation. 100-150 year data.
https://docs.google.com/viewer...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#325 Feb 19, 2013
The economics of global warming. Cline.
The starting point of his analysis is the point of no return reached by about 2050, after that the economic effects of bad harvest, droughts, population movement a.s.o will at least be present for 300 years. Yes...300 years.
http://books.google.nl/books...

So a bit of warped religion (aren't they suppposed to make the world holy-whole/healing) and a quick profit now is the rationalisation of suffering for 300 years!
We haven't even invented the accounting system to deal with such a global feat, let alone the resources, so everyone is going to feel it.
It's not like we have that much farmland, and algea in the seas will be of the wrong kind, so forget about that as resource.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#326 Feb 19, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
Basic chemistry at the high school level shows that reducing the amount of carbon leaving facilities like coal plants reduces the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere.
I keep forgetting we are talking America. Carbon scrubbers are obligated in Europe. As well as many other emission reducing means.
CO 2 is just part of the problem.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#327 Feb 19, 2013
THE subject of climatic and environmental changes that result from human activity has been much in the news recently. Discussions of the greenhouse effect, thinning of the ozone layer, rising levels of carbon dioxide, global warming, chlorofluorocarbons, and acid rain have made the terms common in print. Atmospheric physicists and other scientists have examined the physical consequences of these effects, but the impact of environmental change on the health and survival of humans has received relatively little direct attention, with some notable exceptions.1 Although the direction of environmental change seems clear, much uncertainty remains about its magnitude and tempo. When ...

Source Information
From the Department of Preventive Medicine, Harvard Medical School, and the Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston.

cited in 35 other articles.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#328 Feb 19, 2013
Ah the biggy that's allready a concern in America: the groundwater table dropping and thus a concentration of unwanted effects.
http://www.epa.gov/region04/superfund/images/...
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#329 Feb 19, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
My link was provided as an example of colour coding, it is not relevant to climate change but the technology and processes to provide the results. The data used was CMB data from the Wmap satellite (as specified). Years are not relevant in the context of the CMB, billions of light years are. Just do a google for CMB and/or WMAP
No it does not mean that at all, you are once again attempting to obfuscate with irrelevancies. Approximately 400ppm means approximately 400ppm. That figure makes no reference to “everywhere” funnily enough it does not even make reference to anywhere. Where is co2 approximately 400ppm? Is this approximately 400ppm at sea level, 1000ft, 10,000ft etc?
CO2 is heavier than air, the lower the altitude the higher the concentration, quoting a concentration without the altitude is just one more of your irrelevancies. Same applies to wind data and many other variables.
The difference is that the graphic I linked to was created for the job in hand and relevant as an example of colour coding The graphic you produced was not relevant to the measured CO2 levels spanning thousands of years.
In other words you were unable to find a graph that demonstrated your position on the distribution of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#330 Feb 19, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words you were unable to find a graph that demonstrated your position on the distribution of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
Let me help:
First things first, we can just sample the air, as has been done at all kinds of altitudes all around the globe and the simple fact is that CO2 is what is called a “well mixed gas”.

You can go here to see dozens of CO2 sampling station records from sea level to mountain top, from pole to equator, that show unequivically that CO2 spreads very evenly throughout the global atmosphere, all theory or prediction aside.
http://scienceblogs.com/illconsidered/2010/10...

Here's the direct link:

http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#331 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
You are correct.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#332 Feb 19, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct.
You and Brian_G are both incorrect:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
Drew

Salt Lake City, UT

#333 Feb 19, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You are correct.
In order for a hypothesis to be considered a valid theory, it must be confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Has macro evolution (all plants, animals, and people descendant from a single ancestor) ever been tested and proven through repeated experimental tests? NO! Then why do we teach it to our children as a law of nature? In doing so we are teaching our children not to think critically with an open mind and thus we stifle innovation and valid scientific research.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Chimney1 43,335
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 1 hr Thinking 18,596
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 3 hr The Northener 205,211
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 13 hr ChristineM 917
Questions about first life 16 hr Upright Scientist 18
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 hr Dogen 151,492
Carbon and isotopic dating are a lie Sat One way or another 16
More from around the web