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

Feb 5, 2013 Full story: Verde Independent 1,644

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.

Full Story
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#371 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
What's this? Claims of missing data and rigged computer models?
Is there a pattern here in the way the right attacks science it doesn't want to believe?
Conservapedia? Seriously?

Bub, I've already provided at least *some* of the evidence for evolution, which included, oh... only several BILLION facts to support it.

And I've hardly even mentioned ERV's yet.

“Leave That Thing Alone!”

Since: Nov 07

Location hidden

#372 Feb 20, 2013
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Mutations which lead to adaptation, termed adaptive mutations, can readily fit within a creation model where adaptive mechanisms are a designed feature of bacteria allowing them to survive in a fallen world.8 Since E. coli already possess the ability to transport and utilize citrate under certain conditions, it is conceivable that they could adapt and gain the ability to utilize citrate under broader conditions. This does not require the addition of new genetic information or functional systems (there are no known additive mechanisms). Instead degenerative events are likely to have occurred resulting in the loss of regulation and/or specificity. It is possible that the first mutations or potentiating mutations (at generation 20,000) were either slightly beneficial or neutral in their effect.
When you cut and paste your responses from a source/s that is not "you", the honest thing to do is to give proper citation for the source/s used. Oh... wait... you're arguing the creationist view, so honesty is your enemy. nevermind
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#373 Feb 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Conservapedia? Seriously?
Bub, I've already provided at least *some* of the evidence for evolution, which included, oh... only several BILLION facts to support it.
And I've hardly even mentioned ERV's yet.
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)

The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.

Something that brian illustrates perfectly.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#374 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)
The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.
Something that brian illustrates perfectly.
Yep, and when I realized that I was on my way to no longer believing the people who deny that AGW is a serious problem.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#375 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
I quoted it because it uses the same arguments against evolution that AGW deniers uses: supposedly missing data and manipulated models (remember Climategate?)
The techniques of AGW denial are borrowed from creationism.
Something that brian illustrates perfectly.
Ah, my bad. Poe's law doth apply.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#377 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
You don't seem able to provide the experiment that the creationists demand, brian. They call AGW science pseudoscience, and demand an experiment to prove evolution is real.
You claim it is, yet you can't produce the experiment to prove it.
I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.

There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.
Elohim

Branford, CT

#378 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.
There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.
Like this one
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_greenh...

or this one

http://www.nzagrc.org.nz/

or this

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChangi...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#379 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand"...
So you can't satisfy the creationists' demand for an experiment to prove evolution? Maybe that's because they demand an impossible experiment?

Look in the mirror.
Brian_G wrote:
Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Name any reproducible experiment that proves biological evolution.
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.
Jimbo wrote:
On the other hand, no experiment on evolution or biblical creation can be carried out, these must then be classed as pseudo-science.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#380 Feb 21, 2013
Elohim wrote:
Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.

There are thousands of experiments that verify the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evo...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#381 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
Er, no- you must be a cynical liar.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
The only people who find brian's argument convincing are creationists, and he has to distance himself from them.
And no, the effect is not too weak to measure:
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#382 Feb 21, 2013
Test? Yes? Measure? Yes.

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#383 Feb 21, 2013
OMG, why is tnis not surprising!?? The same anti-science idiot righties who want "both sides" of evolution taught to kids (even though there's only one, the scientific side) now wants a NEW exercise in political propaganda forced into our schools!

Why does the right hate education? My theory's simple - idiots are righties, and righties are idiots.:)
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#384 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
..
LIAR.

How could scientists devise computer models if there are no experimental results?

Come on, ask your wife, if you have one. Otherwise, ask your grocer or senator.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

#385 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
There are thousands of experiments that verify the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evo...
Brainless_G still pushing his "experimental global warming mitigation" BS on these boards, I see.

No, Brainless, scientific facts about greenhouse gases aren't "experiments." They're FACTS. It's YOU who are clueless here.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#386 Feb 21, 2013
"Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints."

"Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...

Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#387 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G, what sort of experiments do you want?

I could link a very simple experiment that demonstrates quite dramatically that CO2 does absorb heat. Would that help?

The Greenhouse effect was verified more than 100 years ago. The Earth would not be livable without it right now. Do you think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what we will have done very soon, would not increase the temperature of the surface?

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#388 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.
There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.
New tactic?
You've repeated this statement twice now.
I simply stumble over the data, be it old small scale studies, computermodels, fieldstudies, laboratory experiments and studies on parts of the ocean that you can glue together (so to say) to create the full picture.
Apart from global data by IPCC NOOA, as was mentioned and ignored by you.
The ocean would be our greatest storage tank.
Simply google: CO2 effects on wind and rain.
Water get's acidic by a.o. CO2, it can only contain that much.
Wind is driven by precipitation and above water get's gas exchange going so bringing even more CO2 in the air. Winds of later have been getting more severe as well as precipitation in some places and draughts in others.
This CO2 again is deposited on soil.
This one is a good one for Shubees home teaching:
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTut...

http://www.google.nl/search...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#389 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
"Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints."
"Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...
Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.
Brians arguement (If any;p. Brian, are you paid per view or per post?) simply comes down to the statement: it's to big for humans to handle, therefore it does not exist.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#390 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Brian_G, what sort of experiments do you want?
I could link a very simple experiment that demonstrates quite dramatically that CO2 does absorb heat. Would that help?
The Greenhouse effect was verified more than 100 years ago. The Earth would not be livable without it right now. Do you think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what we will have done very soon, would not increase the temperature of the surface?
So reducing the temperature would reduce emissions.
Came across those ones too.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#391 Feb 21, 2013
http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/C...
IPCC FAQ

above post i meant emission gasses are reduced by lowering the temperature of the processes that cause them.

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
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 5 min Aura Mytha 173,964
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 18 min Chilli J 116,821
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 137,108
New review critical of "Origins" 6 hr DanFromSmithville 35
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) 9 hr susanblange 70
Need clarification on evolution 9 hr Dogen 15
Bobby Jindal: "I'm Not an Evolutionary Biologist" 11 hr Strel 11
•••

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

•••