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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#527 Mar 10, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Why? Several people have told you where to find documented accounts of such experiments – who gives a damn if you choose to ignore that information?
ChristineM has never told about any experimental test of climate change mitigation; its a hoax. Maybe she's confusing computer models with experiments.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Although you continually harp on about mitigation, mitigation is not a problem in the same way as closing the door after the horse has bolted is not a problem. It’s not a problem, it’s an excuse in the hope of sewing obfuscation.
Are you saying climate change mitigation is doomed to fail?

.
ChristineM wrote:
FACT, climate change is shown to exist, the leading scientific and meteorological institutions agree, there is scientific consensus[URL deleted]“the consensus of the scientific community has shifted from skepticism to near-unanimous acceptance of the evidence of an artificial greenhouse effect.“ YOU CANNOT MITIGATE WHAT EXISTS
Climate always changes, don't panic.

There's no experimental test that shows we can mitigate climate change, what it would cost or how it would benefit or harm.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#528 Mar 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>ChristineM has never told about any experimental test of climate change mitigation; its a hoax. Maybe she's confusing computer models with experiments.
.
<quoted text>Are you saying climate change mitigation is doomed to fail?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, don't panic.
There's no experimental test that shows we can mitigate climate change, what it would cost or how it would benefit or harm.
Don't feed the troll.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#529 Mar 10, 2013
Yes, the climate always changes. The worry is the cause and the rate. In about 10 years the Arctic icecap will break up during the summer for the first time in recorded history.

Does that concern you at all? It should. The dark ocean will absorb even more heat than the icecap did.

This is past the point of no return.

Do you think we should go on blindly burning fossil fuels or should we try to find some alternative sources?
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#530 Mar 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You must live a sheltered existence to have never heard a physicist describe quantum theory as "exceeding the ordinary" and "unexplainable."
Sure, I've heard similar rhetoric. Which still doesn't make it supernatural.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#531 Mar 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>I'm not surprised because you always search with your eyes closed.
The World English Dictionary
supernatural
— adj
1. of or relating to things that cannot be explained according to natural laws
2. characteristic of or caused by or as if by a god; miraculous
3. of, involving, or ascribed to occult beings
4. exceeding the ordinary; abnormal
Several hundred years ago, lightning qualified as 'supernatural' according to your definitions above.

Your definition left out a key word (IMHO): "Yet"

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#532 Mar 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, now try to research what the nonexistence of "hidden variables" implies.
Why, I know what it means but I am guessing you don’t.

Léon Van Hove knew what it meant, and I am still guessing that you don’t seeing as how you had to cherry pick 2 words because the entire sentence does not suite your cause as well so I will quote the entire sentence
Quote
It is the question of the possible existence of "hidden variables," the consideration of which would eliminate the noncausal element involved in the measuring process.
Endquote

Cherry picking specific, out of context phrases from a half century old fragment of a document does not do your cause any favors. Quantum science has moved on somewhat in the last 50 or 60 years. Can you say the same about goddidt?

Seeing as how you are quoting a particular phrase in a particular document I will point you to a phrase on the same page

Quote
Most of the work we have briefly reviewed has been republished by the author, in greatly expanded form, as a book which rapidly became and still is the standard work on the mathematical foundations of quantum mechanics
Endquote

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#533 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>ChristineM has never told about any experimental test of climate change mitigation; its a hoax. Maybe she's confusing computer models with experiments.
.
<quoted text>Are you saying climate change mitigation is doomed to fail?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, don't panic.
There's no experimental test that shows we can mitigate climate change, what it would cost or how it would benefit or harm.
Maybe you are confusing fact with belief, experimental computer models are still experiments even if they screw your limited understanding of science

Maybe you need to re-read my post and stop trying to tell me what you think I am saying and concentrate on what I actually said - you ignorant moron.

Yes it does, however, never, ever in the recorded history of the earth has it changed as rapidly and by as much as in the last 60 or 70 years
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

NEVER – EVER – and this seem to be a point that your deliberately ignore because it is convenient for you and your greed based lifestyle in a technological fossil fuel burning age.

Also see the US figures for the amount of EXTRA co2 the US has emitted over the last 20 years http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions... .

I realise that the academic articles must have been too much for you so here is a wiki page showing several methods of climate change mitigation, each has been shown experimentally to work. However here is the crux of the matter, each is expensive either/or to build or to operate and each requires a governmental commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_r...

It should be noted the majority of the worlds governments of industrial nations are now falling into line with the scientific consensus and committing themselves to reduce CO2 emissions with just 3 copouts. The USA, and two developing countries, China and India.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#534 Mar 11, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>John von Neumann was the first to "prove mathematically" that no "natural mechanism" could possibly exist that is consistent with the equations of quantum theory. If natural mechanisms are to be excluded, then only the "supernatural" ones remain.
You flatter yourself with personal comparisons to Von Neumann, Freeman Dyson, and Richard Feynmann.

In reality, you belong in the pig-pen with Deepak Chopra.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#535 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I realise that the academic articles must have been too much for you so here is a wiki page showing several methods of climate change mitigation, each has been shown experimentally to work. However here is the crux of the matter, each is expensive either/or to build or to operate and each requires a governmental commitment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_r...

The above is not climate mitigation. It is CO2 mitigation, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, but it's not mitigating the climate.

Taking man made Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a good idea. But our government has no more 'commitment(s)' aka dollars to throw at this enterprise.

We are $16.6 trillion dollars in debt. We shot our wad on the likes of Solyndra and 123 batteries. Neither should have been 'invested in' by the government and would not have passed the test of private industry as a candidate for investment.

So if you think any of the above are great ideas, find some investors, do the hard work of planning and implementing the manufacturing process to accomplish the task and you too can be in the top 1%.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#536 Mar 11, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_r...
The above is not climate mitigation. It is CO2 mitigation, taking CO2 out of the atmosphere, but it's not mitigating the climate.
Taking man made Co2 out of the atmosphere could be a good idea. But our government has no more 'commitment(s)' aka dollars to throw at this enterprise.
We are $16.6 trillion dollars in debt. We shot our wad on the likes of Solyndra and 123 batteries. Neither should have been 'invested in' by the government and would not have passed the test of private industry as a candidate for investment.
So if you think any of the above are great ideas, find some investors, do the hard work of planning and implementing the manufacturing process to accomplish the task and you too can be in the top 1%.
Look up the meaning of the word mitigation

Look up the main reason for the previously unknown rapidity and severity of climate change.

Your lack of dollars is not my problem. You are living in one country of just 3 industrialised countries where the government are not interested in investing in the future. Europe and most of the rest of the world DOES have targets and for the most part are on target to meet them.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#537 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Look up the meaning of the word mitigation
Look up the main reason for the previously unknown rapidity and severity of climate change.
Your lack of dollars is not my problem. You are living in one country of just 3 industrialised countries where the government are not interested in investing in the future. Europe and most of the rest of the world DOES have targets and for the most part are on target to meet them.
LOL US emissions were at a 20 year low in 2012. The US is currently on target to reach a 16% reduction by 2020, missing it's projected 17% reduction by only 1%. But there's still better than 6 years to go before we see the final numbers.

I take it you don't live in the US. Well my country's lack of dollars is your problem if you were thinking you were going to get some of them. And yes the US is more likely than not to fail to provide the money Obama promised in 2009.

Most Americans who do think that climate change is real, hard to believe there are some who don't, still don't think money can fix it. And we are pretty much convinced our government doesn't have either the money or the investment expertise to be spending our tax dollars on unproven experiments.

We have federal employees facing a 20% reduction in pay from sequestration because our government can't manage our money. Paying for climate change is not going to get to the top of our list this year.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#538 Mar 11, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Maybe you are confusing fact with belief, experimental computer models are still experiments even if they screw your limited understanding of science
Experiment: A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried.

Computer models that aren't reconciled with real world test (the way airframe and wing models are reconciled) aren't experiments.

I'm still waiting for anyone to cite a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Maybe you need to re-read my post and stop trying to tell me what you think I am saying and concentrate on what I actually said - you ignorant moron.
Don't blame me for your bad posts.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Yes it does, however, never, ever in the recorded history of the earth has it changed as rapidly and by as much as in the last 60 or 70 years[URL deleted]
Coincidence isn't causality; there are no experiments in the atmosphere that show man can change or control global climate.

.
ChristineM wrote:
NEVER – EVER – and this seem to be a point that your deliberately ignore because it is convenient for you and your greed based lifestyle in a technological fossil fuel burning age. Also see the US figures for the amount of EXTRA co2 the US has emitted over the last 20 years[URL deleted]
Coincidence isn't causality. There are more pyramid shaped buildings now, than at any time in the past. Don't you find it odd that there's the same number of experiments that attribute global warming to pyramids as there are that attribute it to man made greenhouse gas emissions; zero.

.
ChristineM wrote:
I realise that the academic articles must have been too much for you so here is a wiki page showing several methods of climate change mitigation, each has been shown experimentally to work. However here is the crux of the matter, each is expensive either/or to build or to operate and each requires a governmental commitment[URL deleted]
I'm not complaining about academic articles; there are plenty of those. I'm just observing there are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation. Don't blame me, I'm not a climate scientist.

.
ChristineM wrote:
It should be noted the majority of the worlds governments of industrial nations are now falling into line with the scientific consensus and committing themselves to reduce CO2 emissions with just 3 copouts. The USA, and two developing countries, China and India.
Restricting greenhouse gas emissions might be the biggest waste ever created; we won't know until its been experimentally tested.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#539 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
there are no experiments in the atmosphere that show man can change or control global climate.
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...

Observe radiation leaving Earth. Increase CO2 concentration. Observe radiation again. Notice decrease.

That's what's called an experiment.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#540 Mar 11, 2013
Actually it's called scientific science fiction.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#541 Mar 11, 2013
Fud wrote:
Actually it's called scientific science fiction.
Poor Fud, when you have nothing denial is the only tool you can use.
Fun Facts

Huntsville, AL

#542 Mar 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
Observe radiation leaving Earth. Increase CO2 concentration. Observe radiation again. Notice decrease.
That's what's called an experiment.
Are you referring to this

https://workspace.imperial.ac.uk/physics/Publ...
litesong

Everett, WA

#543 Mar 11, 2013
Fud wrote:
Actually it's called scientific science fiction.
//////////
Subduction Zone wrote:
Poor Fud, when you have nothing, denial is the only tool you can use.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Subduction Zone....... Please refer to 'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' by its more accurate name,'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend'.'fetid feces face flip flopper fiend' will be most appreciative.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#544 Mar 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
[URL deleted]Observe radiation leaving Earth. Increase CO2 concentration. Observe radiation again. Notice decrease.
That's what's called an experiment.
At best, F.G. offers empirical evidence, not an experimental test on climate. As the oceans warm, they release CO2, coincidence isn't causality.

We release CO2 because we're alive; that's not an experiment.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#545 Mar 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>At best, F.G. offers empirical evidence, not an experimental test on climate. As the oceans warm, they release CO2, coincidence isn't causality.
Whack a mole, with a troll.
An international team of scientists found that oceans have taken in about 118 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from human activities between 1800 and 1994, accounting for nearly a third of their long-term carrying capacity.

The 15-year study, conducted and analyzed with the help of several researchers around the world, looked at nearly 72,000 samples taken in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/n...
The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.st...
Scientists have issued a new warning about climate change after discovering a sudden and dramatic collapse in the amount of carbon emissions absorbed by the Sea of Japan.

The shift has alarmed experts, who blame global warming.

Working with Pavel Tishchenko of the Russian Pacific Oceanological Institute in Vladivostok, Lee and his colleague Geun-Ha Park used a cruise on the Professor Gagarinskiy, a Russian research vessel, last May to take seawater samples from 24 sites across the Sea of Japan.

They compared the dissolved CO2 in the seawater with similar samples collected in 1992 and 1999. The results showed the amount of CO2 absorbed during 1999 to 2007 was half the level recorded from 1992 to 1999.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ja...

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#546 Mar 11, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...
Observe radiation leaving Earth. Increase CO2 concentration. Observe radiation again. Notice decrease.
That's what's called an experiment.
http://www.universetoday.com/26659/earths-ear...

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 Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 20 min Amused 14,967
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 31 min One way or another 35,436
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 1 hr ChristineM 151,361
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 1 hr DanFromSmithville 199,491
the dinosaurs of the lega-warega people: racial... 8 hr MIDutch 2
Ribose can be produced in space 8 hr MIDutch 7
And another gap gets closed 9 hr MIDutch 1
More from around the web