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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#608 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Each molecule of CO2 released into the air has less warming effect; the 'danger' is self-limiting.
Yes, that may be true. However self limiting in terms of no "runway warming" may still mean warming to levels that are highly destructive to a planet full of humans.
<quoted text>I oppose taking out anyone's economic base; this is where we differ. I believe everyone has the right to earn a living.
What you are really claiming is that oil and coal have a right to earn a living even if it screws farmers and whole economies that may lose not only their "living" but their lives through global warming.

The transition I was talking about would be a gradual one anyway, and means of earning a living have changed many times with technology. Note that this flexibility is not so open to subsistence farmers in the third world, even now as we are winning the war on global poverty.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#609 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'll stay in my lane, I don't design experiments; scientists do that.
Yet you think its "your lane" to authoritatively let scientists know that you don't think their experiments and findings are good enough unless they meet your absurd conditions.
If you could cite a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation; I'll change my opinion.
As above...an absurd test given your standard requires we take a whole Earth and arbitrarily adjust CO2 levels up and down to see what happens. Yeah right.

And given that we cannot do this, or cook up a black hole, or personally oversee the deposition of 15,000 feet of sedimentary deposits, or evolve a giraffe from a petri-dish, or change the course of a continent, or test a new Big Bang, etc etc, we should just ignore 90% of science and be content with noting how ball bearings role down an incline.

When what we can test is consistent with our hypothesis, the rules of induction allow us to extrapolate a qualified conclusion from data available. This has always been the case, and climate science is no exception just because it upsets you and your oil buddies.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#610 Mar 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Of course it is. Calling you an idiot without having shown that you're entirely clueless about science, and misrepresent and distort the views of real scientists would be a fallacy.
^^^That's just childish name-calling; please quote those misrepresentations and distortions that you dislike.

My views are my own, I don't claim some scientist has noticed there are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, I claim I noticed the lack.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#611 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yes, that may be true. However self limiting in terms of no "runway warming" may still mean warming to levels that are highly destructive to a planet full of humans.
That's possible, we'll never know without either waiting to see what happens or conducting experimental tests on climate change mitigation. Until we know; there's no point worrying.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
What you are really claiming is that oil and coal have a right to earn a living even if it screws farmers and whole economies that may lose not only their "living" but their lives through global warming.
On the one side we have a possible threat of unknown probability and magnitude from global warming against the certainty of job loss and poverty from restricting fossil fuel production and use.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
The transition I was talking about would be a gradual one anyway, and means of earning a living have changed many times with technology. Note that this flexibility is not so open to subsistence farmers in the third world, even now as we are winning the war on global poverty.
If green energy is better than fossil fuels, then we don't need government spending; let the market decide.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#612 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Yet you think its "your lane" to authoritatively let scientists know that you don't think their experiments and findings are good enough unless they meet your absurd conditions....
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation.

I'll wait.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#613 Mar 18, 2013
If you don't like my standard: an experimental test of climate change mitigation, then tell me your standard.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#614 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found for climate change mitigation.
I'll wait.
Again your ridiculous standard.

How about experiments showing that CO2 levels affect the temperature in a system with incoming light in the visible wavelengths and outgoing light in the infrared? That is a well tested fact.

Ergo, if you change CO2 concentration, you will change temperature in the atmosphere, subject to potential positive and negative feedbacks.

You have already admitted to accepting this, on the basic that you know that additional CO2 has progressively less effect as concentration increases. Therefore you acknowledge that the effect is real.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#615 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>On the one side we have a possible threat of unknown probability and magnitude from global warming against the certainty of job loss and poverty from restricting fossil fuel production and use.
Which is why I do not advocate extreme solutions involving restrictions on fossil fuel production. Just sensible solutions involving gradual replacement the most intense emitters with lower and non-emitting energy sources.
If green energy is better than fossil fuels, then we don't need government spending; let the market decide.
Face the facts. While a large part of US innovation has come from the private sector, a large part has also come from government sponsored R&D and in military innovation where the government was the only customer and there is hardly a "market" in any real sense.

If you want to champion the free market, perhaps you should start by acknowledging that all subsidies and concessions on oil and coal should be removed immediately.

Your country has bankrupted itself on military adventures whose primary goal is securing the stability of oil producers because you need them. This is also an oil subsidy. Yet this was not funded by a tax on oil, but on general taxation and borrowing. Meanwhile, you ignore the bloated military spending while blaming the country's financial state on a few moochers collecting food stamps. Its a joke.

If you want to argue based on the excellent founding principles of your country, great. But be consistent.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#616 Mar 18, 2013
To date it’s all scientific science fiction scare tactics to extract more tax dollars from the real tax payers.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#617 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Arrhenius' greenhouse law reads as follows:
if the quantity of carbonic acid [H2CO3] increases in geometric progression, the augmentation of the temperature will increase nearly in arithmetic progression.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
This means, every molecule of CO2 released into the air causes less temperature increase than the previous molecule of CO2 added to the air. Don't panic, the greenhouse effect is self-limiting.
Where did you go to school? Did you go to school?

First I suggest you look up the meaning of arithmetic progression.

Hint, it does NOT mean subtraction

Then I suggest you take a short 101 course on chemistry

H2C03 IS NOT C02

As for self limiting, I suggest you take a trip to Venus and take a look how self limiting it is there…

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#618 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Again your ridiculous standard. How about experiments showing that CO2 levels affect the temperature in a system with incoming light in the visible wavelengths and outgoing light in the infrared? That is a well tested fact.
Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Ergo, if you change CO2 concentration, you will change temperature in the atmosphere, subject to potential positive and negative feedbacks.
OK, how about citing any experiment that shows a man made change in atmospheric CO2, release or capture some CO2 and show a corresponding change in the atmosphere from the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements. That experiment hasn't been done either.

It's easy to write "if you change CO2 concentration" but so far that's been impossible to do experimentally in the atmosphere.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
You have already admitted to accepting this, on the basic that you know that additional CO2 has progressively less effect as concentration increases. Therefore you acknowledge that the effect is real.
The effect is real but the lack of experimental evidence indicates the effect of man made CO2 emissions are insignificant.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#619 Mar 18, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
Which is why I do not advocate extreme solutions involving restrictions on fossil fuel production. Just sensible solutions involving gradual replacement the most intense emitters with lower and non-emitting energy sources.
You live in Dubai, no wonder you don't want to restrict fossil fuel production. I'll bet you wouldn't mind a new tax on fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are vital commodities so a new tax would only raise their price making more profits for those with stockpiles.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Face the facts. While a large part of US innovation has come from the private sector, a large part has also come from government sponsored R&D and in military innovation where the government was the only customer and there is hardly a "market" in any real sense.
Maybe that's how the 'free market' works in the UAE, in the USA the government doesn't drive innovation or markets.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
If you want to champion the free market, perhaps you should start by acknowledging that all subsidies and concessions on oil and coal should be removed immediately.
Remove all subsidies from green energy too; that's only fair. I'm against raising taxes. Why don't you tell us which 'subsidies' you're writing about.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Your country has bankrupted itself on military adventures
We were attacked on 9/11; that will not stand. We defeated the Taliban government and established a new government in Afghanistan that won't tolerate the terrorists.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
whose primary goal is securing the stability of oil producers because you need them. This is also an oil subsidy.
US policy is freedom of the seas. Chimney calls that an oil subsidy and I call that a peace subsidy; this is where we differ.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
Yet this was not funded by a tax on oil, but on general taxation and borrowing. Meanwhile, you ignore the bloated military spending while blaming the country's financial state on a few moochers collecting food stamps. Its a joke.
We're still at war in Afghanistan; I oppose any cuts in military spending that would endanger the lives of our troops.

.
Chimney1 wrote:
If you want to argue based on the excellent founding principles of your country, great. But be consistent.
Understand, Dubai doesn't have 'excellent founding principles', it has a tyrant.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#620 Mar 18, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Where did you go to school? Did you go to school?
I choose not to disclose personal information.

.
ChristineM wrote:
First I suggest you look up the meaning of arithmetic progression. Hint, it does NOT mean subtraction
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Then I suggest you take a short 101 course on chemistry H2C03 IS NOT C02
If CO2 is disolved in water, you get H2C03; that's how Svante Arrhenius determined the greenhouse effect. If H2CO3 warms, it emits CO2 out of solution.

.
ChristineM wrote:
As for self limiting, I suggest you take a trip to Venus and take a look how self limiting it is there…
You buy, I'll fly.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#621 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.
Those experiments show only the warming due to CO2: you have to add onto that feedback effects.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#622 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I choose not to disclose personal information.
We already know, you're a college drop out.
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
There's enough carbon in the ground to double the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere twice and cause disastrous global warming.

You're a college drop out pitching to the same or lower level of scientific understanding, the endless repetition is to find as many gullible ignorant people as possible. A mob of idiots can cause a lot of damage, where one alone can't.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#623 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
Although this argument sounds vaguely convincing, is an important point to make.

It has not convinced the scientific community.

For good reason.
So if we continue in a business-as-usual scenario, we should expect to see atmospheric CO2 levels accelerate rapidly enough to more than offset the logarithmic relationship with temperature, and cause the surface temperature warming to accelerate as well. Monckton's claim of a "straight line" increase in global temperature ignores that in his preferred 'business as usual' scenario, we are currently on pace to double the current atmospheric CO2 concentration (390 to 780 ppmv) within the next 60 to 80 years, and we have not yet even come close to doubling the pre-industrial concentration (280 ppmv) in the past 150 years. Thus the exponential increase in CO2 will outpace its logarithmic relationship with surface temperature, causing global warming to accelerate unless we take serious steps to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, to continue the current rate of warming over the 21st Century, we would need to achieve IPCC scenario B1 - a major move away from fossil fuels toward alternative and renewable energy.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/monckton-myth...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#624 Mar 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Those experiments show only the warming due to CO2: you have to add onto that feedback effects.
Can you cite an experimental test on climate feedback in the atmosphere?

To alarmists, the untested trumps reason.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#625 Mar 18, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Although this argument sounds vaguely convincing, is an important point to make. It has not convinced the scientific community. For good reason.[URL deleted]
It sounds convincing because its true, each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less effect than the previous molecule added.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#626 Mar 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>It sounds convincing because its true, each molecule of CO2 added to the atmosphere has less effect than the previous molecule added.
It's just not a reason to think global warming won't be risky.

It's not an argument you'll find in the scientific literature because it's stupid.

It's an argument found on blogs and Internet sites written by non scientists, used by charlatans and of course, trolls.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#627 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
It's just not a reason to think global warming won't be risky. It's not an argument you'll find in the scientific literature because it's stupid. It's an argument found on blogs and Internet sites written by non scientists, used by charlatans and of course, trolls.
Life is risky. We have the technology to adapt to climate change; that's been experimentally tested. We don't have the technology to mitigate climate change, there's no published experiment that shows climate change mitigation is possible.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 min The Northener 52,191
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... 21 min IB DaMann 492
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 24 min replaytime 218,825
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 28 min Aura Mytha 1,203
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 49 min scientia potentia... 24,885
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 56 min scientia potentia... 157,753
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Jan 19 scientia potentia... 98
More from around the web