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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#424 Feb 25, 2013
PHD wrote:
No,
Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA's Aqua satellite, studied a decade's worth of satellite data regarding cloud surface temperatures. "The satellite observations suggest there is much more energy lost to space during and after warming than the climate models show," he writes. "There is a huge discrepancy between the data and the forecasts that is especially big over the oceans."
New method of determining climatechange.
ESA's GOCE
video, one that is really worthwhile looking at ( i normaly skip a lot of those)You've never seen the earth like this!

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#425 Feb 25, 2013
They will work together with NASA.
http://spaceinvideos.esa.int/Videos/2013/02/E...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#426 Feb 25, 2013
I googled climate change mitigation experiments.
And for good measure i skimmed about 20 pages ahead.
~4,370,000 experiments on mitigation of climate change.
Entire television series spanning seasons on all sorts of experiments.
The most wonderfull ideas, like the huge Canadean wind-water-solar factory. That's one to build, but it would cost and takes a lot of area.
Or simply build products to last instead of inbuild self-destruct after three years.
So at the end of the day it are political decisions.

It seems to me that brian G likes to wear blinkers all the time.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#428 Feb 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Science doesn't use consensus to test theories, it uses experimental tests. There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can know its snake oil pseudoscience.
For example, a theory regarding the relationship between heat and temperature can be tested in any laboratory at any time and can, therefore, be classed as scientific. On the other hand, no experiment on evolution or biblical creation can be carried out, these must then be classed as pseudo-science.
http://www.123infinity.com/creation_vs_evolut...

Our resident fossil-fuel fueled troll obviously isn't bothered by the irony of repeating a creationist argument in a creationist argument inspired (teach the controversy) thread.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#429 Feb 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Nature doesn't perform experiments, fail again.
People believe in catastrophic global warming and climate change mitigation because they don't understand science.
It was a figure of speech, dumbass. Obviously I should have put quotations around it to clue in the less, shall we say, literate posters out there - such as yourself.

You have proven yourself over and over to be the one who "doesn't understand science" here. Climate change isn't a belief, it's a fact. It's actually taking place.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#430 Feb 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
...EDITED...Your term climate change mitigation places too narrow a field on the subject, perhaps deliberately so in order to limit the discussion on one small aspect. You are welcome to attempt to limit it to just one aspect of a world wide field if thats your personal solution but dont expect people with a wider view to bow down to your limited notions.
...EDITED....
Exactly. I've accused this troll in the past of not knowing what "mitigation" actually means, his usage of it has been so disingenuous. If you talk about 'change,' he'll invariably follow with comments about 'mitigation.' It's just evasion, in the final analysis.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#431 Feb 25, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Exactly. I've accused this troll in the past of not knowing what "mitigation" actually means, his usage of it has been so disingenuous. If you talk about 'change,' he'll invariably follow with comments about 'mitigation.' It's just evasion, in the final analysis.
Thats what I assumed, that he has no idea what he is talking about but thinks hes being clever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#432 Feb 26, 2013
MAAT wrote:
I googled climate change mitigation experiments.
And for good measure i skimmed about 20 pages ahead.
~4,370,000 experiments on mitigation of climate change.
Entire television series spanning seasons on all sorts of experiments.
The most wonderfull ideas, like the huge Canadean wind-water-solar factory. That's one to build, but it would cost and takes a lot of area.
Or simply build products to last instead of inbuild self-destruct after three years.
So at the end of the day it are political decisions.
It seems to me that brian G likes to wear blinkers all the time.
Good work, did you find a compelling experiment that shows changing greenhouse gas emissions will change climate? I've found none, if you've found a good experiment, I'll change my position.

Science isn't a political decision.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#434 Feb 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
http://www.123infinity.com/creation_vs_evolut...
Our resident fossil-fuel fueled troll obviously isn't bothered by the irony of repeating a creationist argument in a creationist argument inspired (teach the controversy) thread.
Fair Game's reference doesn't mention experiments. You can tell climate change mitigation is a hoax because its a theoretical prototype without any experimental tests to show how much it would cost and what good it would do.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#435 Feb 26, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
It was a figure of speech, dumbass. Obviously I should have put quotations around it to clue in the less, shall we say, literate posters out there - such as yourself.
You have proven yourself over and over to be the one who "doesn't understand science" here. Climate change isn't a belief, it's a fact. It's actually taking place.
The word 'experiment' has a meaning, its not a figure of speech that you can change whenever you wish. Nature doesn't perform experiments.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#436 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good work, did you find a compelling experiment that shows changing greenhouse gas emissions will change climate? I've found none, if you've found a good experiment, I'll change my position.
Science isn't a political decision.
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...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#437 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Coincidence isn't causality. I've found no experimental test of climate change mitigation, have you?
Snake oil salesmen never demonstrate products, hand out samples or offer trials; just like climate change mitigation supporters.
What I really dont understand is that several posters on here (including myself) have provided links to such experiments and you have deliberately ignored them. You have often been reminded of the links and again you have ignored them. In one case one poster cited a google search that provided over 40,000 search results and you ignored it.

This smacks of the ignorant and pathetic I cannot see you evidence because I am not looking therefore I win attitude of godbots, creationists and fundies with no intelligence.

You have been weighed and measured and you fall into the BS category.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#438 Feb 26, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
What I really dont understand is that several posters on here (including myself) have provided links to such experiments and you have deliberately ignored them. You have often been reminded of the links and again you have ignored them. In one case one poster cited a google search that provided over 40,000 search results and you ignored it.
This smacks of the ignorant and pathetic I cannot see you evidence because I am not looking therefore I win attitude of godbots, creationists and fundies with no intelligence.
You have been weighed and measured and you fall into the BS category.
Brian is a troll. He repeats the same foolishness over and over just to get a response and piss people off.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#439 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good work, did you find a compelling experiment that shows changing greenhouse gas emissions will change climate? I've found none, if you've found a good experiment, I'll change my position.
Science isn't a political decision.
We are not at all amazed you found none given your definition of science.
If it even looks slightly political it can't be science.
Anything to do with mitigation is political thus no science.

For the more levelheaded ones:
911 was a great opportunity to measure effects.
So they made use of the suddenly clear skies.

But avoiding dangerous climate change is a political decision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_im...

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#440 Feb 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian is a troll. He repeats the same foolishness over and over just to get a response and piss people off.
But the point is that he is always in the defensive.
He has to react. And I notice he starts to become actually irrational.

cool

That is if you are the observer of the subject in his experimental (black)box.
PHD

Overton, TX

#441 Feb 26, 2013
MAAT wrote:
<quoted text>
New method of determining climatechange.
ESA's GOCE
video, one that is really worthwhile looking at ( i normaly skip a lot of those)You've never seen the earth like this!
Do agree it is worthwhile looking at it.Could be the only real method determinig climate change.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#442 Feb 26, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Brian is a troll. He repeats the same foolishness over and over just to get a response and piss people off.
Oh I thought he did it to make people laugh

I certainly have a giggle at his stupidity and Im sure you have too

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#443 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Science doesn't use consensus to test theories, it uses experimental tests. There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can know its snake oil pseudoscience.
Every user of fossil fuel makes the market as much as every producer. Don't cut off your nose to spite your face.
Science uses induction - the application of particular observations to generalisations - all the time.

There is plenty of experimental evidence than C02 and some other gases are opaque to some wavelengths of infrared. We know that absorption of incident light results in increasing temperature. We know that the average temp on the Moon, lacking any atmosphere, is -18 degrees, just as it would be on Earth as we are equidistant from the sun. We know that Venus has a higher surface temp than the closer Mercury, due to its intensely thick high GHG atmosphere.

Those are just a few of the pointers making a mockery of your claim that any predictions regarding raising or lowering C02 is "pseudoscience".

Granted that the complexity of positive and negative feedback loops will complicate the story and make precise prediction difficult, there is still good evidence that changing the CO2 concentration will affect surface temperature on Earth - and that it has already done so.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#444 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Good work, did you find a compelling experiment that shows changing greenhouse gas emissions will change climate? I've found none, if you've found a good experiment, I'll change my position.
Science isn't a political decision.
Since we know for a fact that greenhouse gases cause warming (first demonstrated by Fourier in 1824) and we know that more cause more warming, why would any conclusion be possible other than 'decreasing greenhouse gases would decrease greenhouse-gas caused warming?'

It's simple logic, there's no reason to do an experiment to prove the obvious. Except to Denier trolls like yourself, I suppose. You've gotten a lot of mileage out of this spurious demand, haven't you?

No, science isn't a political decision. That's why you need to stop injecting politics into it, troll.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#445 Feb 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The word 'experiment' has a meaning, its not a figure of speech that you can change whenever you wish. Nature doesn't perform experiments.
Every figure of speech has a meaning, troll. Scientists, for example, often speak of evolution "experimenting" with various life-forms which die off or evolve. They know that evolution is not a sentient being which sits on a lab stool and performs experiments.

EVERYONE knows this but you, Brian. That's what makes you a moronic Denier troll.:)

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 min Marksman11 142,796
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 min Chimney1 20,723
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Paul Porter1 306
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 5 hr ChristineM 172,029
What Motives Created Social Darwinism? 21 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
Simulated Evolution in a Computer Program 21 hr Zog Has-fallen 2
Cartier brand luxury bangle cartier watch on il... Mon Dopy 1
More from around the web