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
521 - 540 of 1,645 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 23

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#538
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#539
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Bertram, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#540
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Actually it's called scientific science fiction.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#541
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#542
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Lynnwood, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#543
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#544
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

3

1

1

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"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#545
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#546
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#547
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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.
The empirical evidence on CO2 and warming proves you are wrong.

The fact that you keep repeating the claim that warming oceans have released CO2 proves you are a liar.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#548
Mar 11, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>At best, F.G. offers empirical evidence, not an experimental test on climate.
By your chosen definition of an experiment (one from the field of psychiatric medicine, which proves you are a cretin, but nevertheless) it's an experiment.
Brian_G wrote:
The single-subject experimental paradigm, a research paradigm, can also be a powerful decision-making tool in clinical evaluation. To support this thesis, a brief review of the single-subject paradigm is presented, including a discussion of its 1) place in the continuum of methods to develop knowledge, 2) essential characteristics, 3) similarities to the therapeutic process, 4) validity, and 5) generality of findings. Usefulness of designs in this paradigm is illustrated with examples from the physical therapy literature, the ABA and the multiple-baseline designs. Also illustrated is the precision of information gained through individual data analysis....
http://physther.org/content/69/7/601.short
We observed radiation leaving the Earth (baseline).
We added more CO2 to the atmosphere (intervention) and collected data on the dependent variable (radiation leaving the Earth was less).

What's the next stage in the experimental paradigm *you* chose?

Reversal: we should reduce CO2 and see what happens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-subject_d...

Of course the fact that your arguments are demonstrably foolish won't stop you bleating "there is no experiment" two minutes later.

Many intelligent people have responded to you on this thread. The only person you have convinced is an obvious nutter.

Yet you continue to repeat the same argument as if it had not been shown to be imbecilic.

I think the intelligent people here are beginning to realise something that people who have been here longer realised a long time ago: that you are simply a troll.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#549
Mar 11, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
Your point being what?

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#550
Mar 12, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Your point being what?
If you can not connect the dots that is not my problem.

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#551
Mar 12, 2013
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
Oxygen is killing you

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#552
Mar 12, 2013
 
Fair Game wrote:
By your chosen definition of an experiment (one from the field of psychiatric medicine, which proves you are a cretin, but nevertheless) it's an experiment. We observed radiation leaving the Earth (baseline). We added more CO2 to the atmosphere (intervention) and collected data on the dependent variable (radiation leaving the Earth was less).
Our CO2 emissions are not controlled, they aren't part of an experiment.

.
Fair Game wrote:
What's the next stage in the experimental paradigm *you* chose? Reversal: we should reduce CO2 and see what happens.[URL deleted] Of course the fact that your arguments are demonstrably foolish won't stop you bleating "there is no experiment" two minutes later.
The next step should be learning what's an experiment. It's intentional, not an accidental byproduct of life.

.
Fair Game wrote:
Many intelligent people have responded to you on this thread. The only person you have convinced is an obvious nutter. Yet you continue to repeat the same argument as if it had not been shown to be imbecilic. I think the intelligent people here are beginning to realise something that people who have been here longer realised a long time ago: that you are simply a troll.
I'm not a scientist, I don't do experiments for my living. If you don't like the experimental history on the man made greenhouse gas effect, don't blame me. I'm just observing there are no experiments testing climate change mitigation, not suggesting experiments.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#553
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
Is that for the year or the first quarter? I cant find anthing for the entire year
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm...

And of course fracking helps, such a pity it does so much damage to the environment otherwise it could be the perfect solution.

However I did find this
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2013/02/the-u...

Quote
At first glance, a new report from the World Resources Institute (WRI) might look like good news for US greenhouse gas emissions.
Although the world's largest economy is currently missing its 2020 emissions reduction target, it should be possible for the president to make the target without help from a stubborn Congress.
Endquote
Quote
The US has made some progress towards this goal - for a range of reasons. But federal climate action stalled in 2010 after Obama failed to get climate change legislation passed in the Senate.
Endquote

Yes only a blog but from a reputable site and very interesting reading particularly putting your statement of “US emissions were at a 20 year low in 2012” into context.

Why would I want to live in the US? Been a few times, country is quite nice in places and as big a dumb as just about anywhere in others, however the thing that lets it down are that percentage of the people who are just like you. And why would I want any of your dollars, I have my own pounds and euros thank you, I have done investing in the US when the US b(w)ankers ripped the world off. That little escapade in American greed cost me 80 grand (GBP), does not happen twice.

See also http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/
Particularly the subheadings
Climate change is happening
Our Earth is warming
The evidence is clear.
Humans are largely responsible for recent climate change

You are coming across as the typical whining American and the reason you country is enjoying such a poor standing in the world at the moment. I realise that this may a bit controversial but have you ever considered of paying a higher tax rather than winging and trying to shoulder the blame the world economic depression (caused by US b(w)ankers) on anyone else but where it belongs? You (as a nation) are the one who demanded such services as supplied by your government when times were good. Now they are not so good, high unemployment and so less tax dollars coming in perhaps you need to reduce your greed or pay more tax.

Priorities are obviously different when you can only think of yourself and profit now and screw the kids.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#554
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Don't blame me for your bad posts.
.
<quoted text>Coincidence isn't causality; there are no experiments in the atmosphere that show man can change or control global climate.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>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.
.
<quoted text>Restricting greenhouse gas emissions might be the biggest waste ever created; we won't know until its been experimentally tested.
Yes just as computer models do so that makes no difference to the outcome and you do need to remember that I (and several others) provided documentation of physical tests that YOU IGNORE.

No - you are simply IGNORING those test and if you keep waiting in the same ignorant way just proves your ignorance.

Nothing wrong with the post, the problem lies in your own deliberate ignorance and refusal to accept any proposal but your own. So typically childish to try an pin the blame for your own stupidity on others.

Coincidence or causality! It is happening, it is the scientific and governmental consensus that that the rapid and unprecedented increase in climate change is man made. Your denial is irrelevant.

Acting like a child and lying does not help your cause, it is the scientific and governmental consensus, a consensus based on experimentation and hard data (that you ignore) that that the rapid and unprecedented increase in climate change is man made. Your denial is irrelevant.

Yes we know you are not a climate scientist, you make that obvious by your childish behaviour and the way you do not even consider the evidence.

Or until the earth is ruined, whichever comes first. And no experimental test will make the slightest bit of difference to the extreme flooding that northern Europe and India has seen increasingly over the last couple of decades. The increase in the ferocity of hurricanes, cyclones and tropical storms seen over the last few years. The melting icecaps and consequent rise in sea level etc…

Some more of the effects of climate change;.
http://www.businessinsider.com/16-irrefutable...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#555
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Our CO2 emissions are not controlled, they aren't part of an experiment.
The experimental paradigm *you* proposed doesn't require a control. Make your mind up, idiot.
I'm not a scientist...
No, you're a stupid troll. You prove that with every post.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#556
Mar 12, 2013
 

Judged:

1

PHD wrote:
Actually it's called scientific science fiction.
Is that the only mantra you have?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#557
Mar 12, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =VnAhAX98HY4
Oxygen is killing you
Yes and so is cyanide and radiation from the 1950/60s nuclear test and Chernobyl etc, and smoking and processed meat and being run over by a bus and old age and much, much more.

However oxygen is NOT increasing, is combining with the carbon in an unprecedented rate and creating CO2.

So how about going into a room full of oxygen for 10 minutes and then a room full of carbon dioxide 10 minutes and seeing which kills you first.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

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.

16 Users are viewing the Evolution Debate Forum right now

Search the Evolution Debate Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
The Universe is fine-tuned for life 7 min wondering 373
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 16 min KAB 134,481
GOP House candidate Bob Frey believes dinosaurs... 18 min wondering 13
Science News (Sep '13) 23 min Hatti_Hollerand 2,838
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 31 min wondering 113,000
British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... 2 hr TurkanaBoy 149
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr Ooogah Boogah 171,504
Big Bang? 2 hr TurkanaBoy 295
•••
•••