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 (Page 21)

Showing posts 401 - 420 of1,624
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#414
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

phudd wrote:
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."
His paper was so full of errors the journal editor who published it resigned in disgrace.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Journal-edito...
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#415
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

4

4

3

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."
PHD

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#416
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

3

Dr. Roy Spencer, a team leader for NASA,
NASA’s Tropical Rain Measuring Mission (TRMM) has been,
“in my opinion“,
a huge success. It has been operating for over 15 years now, which makes me feel pretty old since I was involved in the early design of the TRMM Microwave Imager (TMI) that flies on TRMM. I campaigned for it to carry 10.7 GHz channels which would allow sensitivity to heavy rain, as well as all-weather sea surface temperatures. TRMM also carries the first spaceborne precipitation radar, which was built by Japan.
More opinion makes for scientific science fiction.
litesong

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#417
Feb 23, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

professor wrote:
Brainless_G still pushing his "experimental global warming mitigation" BS on these boards, I see.
//////////
Fair Game wrote:
Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.
//////////
Subduction Zone wrote:
Brian_G, what sort of experiments do you want?
//////////
litesong wrote:
For half a decade plus,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' stalled these toxic topix AGW forums with his repeated quote from its 8th grade science book, first page.

Of course,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' only got a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, with no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc. Never got science or mathematics degrees.

What 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' does have is slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms, AND alleged & proud threats.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#421
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
Science has reached a consensus that human influenced climate change is fact. Some deluded and seriously out of step people believe it’s a hoax most often because they don’t want to understand science or they have either directly or indirectly too much vested interest in the alternative.

http://www.earth-policy.org/indicators/C52/ca...

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/...

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#422
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

7

7

4

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.

““You must not lose faith ”

Level 5

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#424
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#426
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#427
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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.
Funny how deniers with nothing but limited intelligence, lies and invalid claims to justify their irrelevant BS fall back on irrelevant and contentious terms like snake oil pseudo science.

Believe what you want, the consensus is not derived from your limited and silly notions but from myriad data samples obtained over several tens of years of measurements including core samples dating to over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.

http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...

Just because you do not consider the scientific consensus valid is no ones fault but you own

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 that’s your personal solution but don’t expect people with a wider view to bow down to your limited notions.

As to your “every user” BS, that my dear is the cause of the “unprecedented” acceleration of global warming

http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

and silly glib comments are not a magic wand that make it all go away. The solution is not yet known (if it will be) but science is working on it with no help from deniers like you.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#428
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

3

2

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.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#429
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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.

“So long to you, Righties”

Since: Jan 12

keep suckin' and whiffin'!

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#430
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

4

1

1

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 that’s your personal solution but don’t 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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#431
Feb 25, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
That’s what I assumed, that he has no idea what he is talking about but “thinks” he’s being clever.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#432
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#433
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

ChristineM wrote:
Funny how deniers with nothing but limited intelligence, lies and invalid claims to justify their irrelevant BS fall back on irrelevant and contentious terms like snake oil pseudo science.
Believe what you want, the consensus is not derived from your limited and silly notions but from myriad data samples obtained over several tens of years of measurements including core samples dating to over tens and hundreds of thousands of years.
http://www.brookings.edu/research/papers/2006...
Just because you do not consider the scientific consensus valid is no ones fault but you own
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 that’s your personal solution but don’t expect people with a wider view to bow down to your limited notions.
As to your “every user” BS, that my dear is the cause of the “unprecedented” acceleration of global warming
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
and silly glib comments are not a magic wand that make it all go away. The solution is not yet known (if it will be) but science is working on it with no help from deniers like you.
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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#434
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#435
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#437
Feb 26, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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 don’t 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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 401 - 420 of1,624
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

•••
•••
Enter and win $5000
•••
•••