Skull Valley lawmaker wants both side...

Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

There are 1644 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.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#703 Apr 2, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^I don't use ad hominem arguments because I prefer rational arguments.
So, according to you, we should not even ATTEMPT to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (including CO2), because a planet-wide experiment proving the obvious has not been shown. Meanwhile, we have shown the correlation of the increase of CO2 (notably from the burning of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere to the global rise in temperature, and the environmental changes it has -- and WILL produce.

....and that -- to you -- is "rational"?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Too much of anything is bad. Do you have any evidence that five times current atmospheric CO2 levels are harmful?
Not at my fingertips.

Hey. Perhaps it's GOOD for you! YEAH! THAT'S IT! Lets all go suck on a tailpipe!
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you know of any experimental tests on burning fossil fuel and this climate balance? Have you ever seen any compelling experimental tests that show emitting x tons of CO2 changing the atmosphere's CO2 content even the smallest measurable fraction?
If so, please cite.
Talk to the EPA.

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/basics/

“There is no such thing”

Level 3

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#704 Apr 2, 2013

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#705 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
No Chis, citing NOAA and NASA to justify climate change mitigation is the irrational fallacy, not the work done at NOAA and NASA. They've done an excellent job exploring, but have they ever done an experiment that changed the climate?
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, thatís your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.

I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.

I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on youíre a$$ and watching people die. Thatís up to your conscience to reconcile

You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim donít exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant.

NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#706 Apr 3, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
So, according to you, we should not even ATTEMPT to reduce the amount of greenhouse gasses (including CO2),
You may attempt to do whatever you like, I'm not stopping you from reducing your greenhouse gas emissions. If you want to farm and forest, to sequester CO2 from the air to make foodstuffs, textiles and other goods; go for it. I encourage you to do whatever you please with your land and resources. You have the right to take as much CO2 as you like from the air, and put in all you please as well.

.
Kong_ wrote:
because a planet-wide experiment proving the obvious has not been shown.
If it's so obvious, why no experiment demonstrating releasing x amount of CO2 can raise the atmosphere's CO2 content even the smallest measurable degree? If its obvious, why no experiment that shows a man made effect on global climate? Why has climate change mitigation never been demonstrated or tested?

.
Kong_ wrote:
Meanwhile, we have shown the correlation of the increase of CO2 (notably from the burning of fossil fuels) in the atmosphere to the global rise in temperature, and the environmental changes it has -- and WILL produce.
Correlation isn't causality. Also, there's no evidence burning fossil fuel caused all the increase in atmospheric CO2, there's no controls for natural CO2 emissions from the warming oceans or from geological sources.

Only an experiment can separate correlation from causality, to show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on the global climate. If you can't cite an experiment, maybe natural climate variation is far more significant than man's gaseous offerings?

.
Kong_ wrote:
....and that -- to you -- is "rational"?
It's not rational to buy a pig in a poke. If you can experimentally demonstrate man made greenhouse gas emissions causing a change in global climate, that would be a first.

.
Kong_ wrote:
Not at my fingertips. Hey. Perhaps it's GOOD for you! YEAH! THAT'S IT! Lets all go suck on a tailpipe!
Kong can't cite anyone who claims increasing the atmosphere's CO2 content five times would be toxic, because its not. Indoor CO2 levels often exceed five times outside levels, and that's within OSHA's safety tolerance.

As for his invitation to suck on vehicle exhaust, I'd advise against it. It contains carbon monoxide, I'm surprised Kong doesn't know that.

.
Kong_ wrote:
Talk to the EPA.[URL deleted]
The EPA's charter expressly stops them from regulating CO2. They've never done an experiment that shows man made CO2 emissions changing climate either.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#707 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, thatís your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.
I'm glad ChristineM doesn't advocate climate change mitigation; that's the heart of the issue. We've always adapted to climate change, our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth.

.
ChristineM wrote:
I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.
Chris can't know if extreme weather is caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions because that's never been experimentally tested. We can't control storms, start or stop them, or mitigate climate change.

.
ChristineM wrote:
I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on youíre a$$ and watching people die. Thatís up to your conscience to reconcile
^^^This is the ad hominem fallacy alarmists find so appealing when rationality fails them.

.
ChristineM wrote:
You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim donít exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant. NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found, that either shows man made global climate change or climate change mitigation. We've seen the results of atmospheric nuclear blasts, that raised tons of man made particulates into the atmosphere; they showed a brief local cooling effect but no change in global climate.

If you can cite even one compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, I'll change my position. What would it take for you to change your position?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#708 Apr 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I'm glad ChristineM doesn't advocate climate change mitigation; that's the heart of the issue. We've always adapted to climate change, our technology allows us to live in almost every climate on Earth.
.
<quoted text>Chris can't know if extreme weather is caused by man made greenhouse gas emissions because that's never been experimentally tested. We can't control storms, start or stop them, or mitigate climate change.
.
<quoted text>^^^This is the ad hominem fallacy alarmists find so appealing when rationality fails them.
.
<quoted text>Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found, that either shows man made global climate change or climate change mitigation. We've seen the results of atmospheric nuclear blasts, that raised tons of man made particulates into the atmosphere; they showed a brief local cooling effect but no change in global climate.
If you can cite even one compelling experiment for climate change mitigation, I'll change my position. What would it take for you to change your position?
Donít talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue, the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention.

Why do you ignore the consensus of scientists and climatologists?

Say what??? Why do you contradict yourself so often, is it because you are ignorant or simply stupid, let me quote you ĖďOur technology allows us to live in almost every climate on EarthĒ followed in the very next paragraph by ĖďWe can't control storms, start or stop them,ÖĒ You prove your ignorance of our technology with every post you make.

Why is it ad hom because I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on youíre a$$ and watching people die. Nope thatís just simple fact based on your own defective personality as shown in your posts. I am not the one with the facetious attitude to death, that me dear is you. True that you thought you were being clever, such a shame you are so clueless about the consequences of what you preach.

You have repeatedly been offered links, I am not hear to pander you your ignorance, so I will simply repeat one of the links I have shown you before,
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/hist...
Or go back a few pages and click the links provided by several posters.

No you wonít change anything because you are just a lying moron, you have been offered links to thousands of pages of evidence, there is one in the previous paragraph and we can pretty much guarantee you will either ignore it or attempt to discredit with irrelevant BS. You have been shown links to charts and documents published by the worlds leading scientific bodes and climatologists and you have ignored them. So what is going to change now?

What would it take for me to change my position, there are a couple of things, one absolute evidence that the majority of scientist are wrong, and lets face facts here, that is not going to happen. Or perhaps that the current bout of climate change will be beneficial to my children, considering how it is now and the forecast is that it will only get worse then I very much doubt that also is going to happen.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#709 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Donít talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue,
Do you advocate climate change mitigation or not? That's all I care about, if we can't change climate: Why worry?

.
ChristineM wrote:
the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention. Why do you ignore the consensus of scientists and climatologists?
Climate always changes, the issue is how much is man made and how much is natural climate variation. If man's part is insignificant, we're back to: Why worry?

.
ChristineM wrote:
Say what??? Why do you contradict yourself so often, is it because you are ignorant or simply stupid, let me quote you ĖďOur technology allows us to live in almost every climate on EarthĒ followed in the very next paragraph by ĖďWe can't control storms, start or stop them,ÖĒ You prove your ignorance of our technology with every post you make.
Improving construction and architecture technology isn't mitigating climate change, that's adaptation. We know adaptation works, it's climate change mitigation that's never been done.

Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?

I advocate adapting to climate change, not mitigating climate change especially with new taxes, government regulation and spending taxpayer's money on crony green energy schemes.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Why is it ad hom because I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on youíre a$$ and watching people die. Nope thatís just simple fact based on your own defective personality as shown in your posts. I am not the one with the facetious attitude to death, that me dear is you. True that you thought you were being clever, such a shame you are so clueless about the consequences of what you preach.
Look up ad hominem, it doesn't matter what you say about me. People won't go along with climate change mitigation until it's been tested.

.
ChristineM wrote:
You have repeatedly been offered links, I am not hear to pander you your ignorance, so I will simply repeat one of the links I have shown you before,[URL deleted] Or go back a few pages and click the links provided by several posters.
I see the problem, a link isn't an experiment. Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found that either demonstrates man made climate change or climate change mitigation.

.
ChristineM wrote:
No you wonít change anything because you are just a lying moron, you have been offered links to thousands of pages of evidence, there is one in the previous paragraph and we can pretty much guarantee you will either ignore it or attempt to discredit with irrelevant BS. You have been shown links to charts and documents published by the worlds leading scientific bodes and climatologists and you have ignored them. So what is going to change now?
Show me a compelling experiment that shows a man made change in global climate and I'll cahnge my views.

.
ChristineM wrote:
What would it take for me to change my position, there are a couple of things, one absolute evidence that the majority of scientist are wrong, and lets face facts here, that is not going to happen. Or perhaps that the current bout of climate change will be beneficial to my children, considering how it is now and the forecast is that it will only get worse then I very much doubt that also is going to happen.
Thank's for finally answering this question I've asked over the past couple months. Didn't the climategate emails convince you most of the 'scientists' with a vested interest in funding man made climate change mitigation are frauds?

I wish you and your children well. I recommend adapting to climate; don't buy a pig in a poke.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#710 Apr 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
For the last time you piece of festering dung, I am not discussing mitigation, thatís your lukewarm excuse for a hot potato, not mine.
I am discussing FACT as it happens, extreme weather caused by man made climate change that is leading to devastation of land and property, vast insurance claims, millions of lost work hours and DEATH.
I am not interested in your personal dreams and chicken sh|t get out clauses and excuses for sitting on youíre a$$ and watching people die. Thatís up to your conscience to reconcile
You have been shown links to hundreds (possibly thousands) of the experiments you claim donít exists but you choose to ignore them because you are ignorant.
NASA and NOAA have both shown the effects of climate change, they have both shown that the dramatic increase in atmospheric CO2 levels is man made.
A troll wants to cause a commotion and get people ranting and raving because they want their presence on a forum or comments thread to be the main focus. They want the spotlight and attention on them.

To do this they will disrupt the flow of conversation, provoke fellow commenters and/or post abusive statements to inflame a response.

Often they will play devils advocate, vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue in an attempt to get people riled up.

When they get a response they cite that as a victory so donít show any emotion in your responses Ė this is the only thing they have to feed off.

Sometimes it can be hard to determine whether someone is playing at being a troll or if, in actual fact, theyíre just an idiot.
http://www.insidersedge.co.uk/lifestyletips/h...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#711 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Do you advocate climate change mitigation or not? That's all I care about, if we can't change climate: Why worry?
.
<quoted text>Climate always changes, the issue is how much is man made and how much is natural climate variation. If man's part is insignificant, we're back to: Why worry?
.
<quoted text>Improving construction and architecture technology isn't mitigating climate change, that's adaptation. We know adaptation works, it's climate change mitigation that's never been done.
Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
I advocate adapting to climate change, not mitigating climate change especially with new taxes, government regulation and spending taxpayer's money on crony green energy schemes.
.
<quoted text>Look up ad hominem, it doesn't matter what you say about me. People won't go along with climate change mitigation until it's been tested.
.
<quoted text>I see the problem, a link isn't an experiment. Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found that either demonstrates man made climate change or climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>Show me a compelling experiment that shows a man made change in global climate and I'll cahnge my views.
.
<quoted text>Thank's for finally answering this question I've asked over the past couple months. Didn't the climategate emails convince you most of the 'scientists' with a vested interest in funding man made climate change mitigation are frauds?
I wish you and your children well. I recommend adapting to climate; don't buy a pig in a poke.
Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a stupid moron with no clue of what technology actually is

WTF has putting up an umbrella got to do with controlling storms? Not only ignorant and stupid but facetious too.

I donít give a damn what you advocate.

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are an ignorant T\/\/AT

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a stupid moron

Paragraph ignored on the grounds that you are a lying fool who believes everyone is as stupid as you.

More lies, you have NEVER asked me that question. One set of emails from one group discussing ways to alleviate the harm prats like you do are not a vested interest.

More facetious clap trap. Your recommendations are not worth sh|t

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#712 Apr 4, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Mammals evolved when CO2 levels were as much as ten times what they are today.
Yes, quite. 1750ppm or four and a half times the current level.

Not to mention, average surface temperatures 3 degrees above current as well.

BUT, Brian G screams, THAT'S ONLY CORRELATION!!!!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#713 Apr 4, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Just another right-wing anti-science nut demanding to dumb down our schools by teaching "both sides" of a subject which has only one.
C'mon, doofus, let's require "both sides" of the spherical-earth theory, or "both sides" of the law of gravity. Gotta be permitted to teach "both sides" of the slavery debate in History, too, and geology will have to feature "both sides" of the question of Earth's age...
And people wonder why our educational system is regressing??
But you have to teach both sides of the "education is regressing" hypothesis too you know. Toxically high levels of self-esteem can overcome any shortfalls in mere competence. Isn't that the new strategy?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#714 Apr 4, 2013
I wrote: "Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
"
ChristineM wrote:
...WTF has putting up an umbrella got to do with controlling storms?...
To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...

Note the verb 'make', that means control. Looks like Chris doesn't understand the difference between climate mitigation and adaptation. I always suspected that.

We should never underestimate the power of ignorance. Fear drives man made global warming alarmism, not reason.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#715 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What is unusual about Minnesota's spring? It looks a bit warmer than it was when I lived there but that was almost thirty years ago. Snow used to last until about halfway through April. "Spring" was a very short season when I grew up there. What passed for spring lasted 4 to 6 weeks and then we were into summer.
What is it like there now, and I am speaking of the Minneapolis area in specific.
I see that you are from Minneapolis, have you ever had breakfast at Al's Breakfast? I miss their hash browns.
Nothing very unusual about Minnesota weather in the last 50 years other than recently, winters seems less cold (fewer sub-zero highs) and summer temps do not exceed 100 degrees as often as they did.

Once, in the previous millennium, but nobody goes to Al's anymore cuz the line is so long it generally takes an hour or more to get a seat ;-)

-koolaid

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#716 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
.... Toxically high levels of self-esteem can overcome any shortfalls in mere competence.
...
That must be a daily struggle for you.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#717 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I wrote: "Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
"
<quoted text>To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...
Note the verb 'make', that means control. Looks like Chris doesn't understand the difference between climate mitigation and adaptation. I always suspected that.
We should never underestimate the power of ignorance. Fear drives man made global warming alarmism, not reason.
Yes dear but obviously you canít. How the fook do you control a storm with an umbrella? Or were you once again being facetious?

Yes dear I also know what the word mitigation means. Mitigation is a control that is added AFTER the fact.

No dear, itís not fear, itís reason as supplied by the consensus of science, not the excuses and denials of morons with little intelligence such as you fail to cite.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#718 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...
The scientific concensus is that Man **HAS** contributed greatly to climate change (massive increases in CO2, depletion of carbon sinks, etc).

If the antonyms of "mitigate" are agreed to as: intensify, provoke, stir, worsen ( http://thesaurus.com/browse/mitigate ),
then it can be said that we HAVE provoked (etc) or at bare minimum participated in some ways to the documented increase of global temperatures over the past 100+ years.

With current technologies just now becoming viable for consumers(wind, solar, etc), perhaps we can "mitigate" our role in catastrophic climate change. Changes that would be FAR MORE COSTLY than a pitiful 'carbon tax', etc that you're worried about.

Or do you work for the oil and natural gas industry?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#719 Apr 5, 2013
On July 20 1969 Apollo 11 landed on the moon. There were 10 previous Apollo missions that didn't land, they were experimental tests for the moon landing.

In the real world, things are tested before they begin full scale production. Climate change mitigation has never been tested; that's how you can tell it's a hoax.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#720 Apr 5, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
On July 20 1969 Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
In 1955, 14 years before the true manned moon landing, people made a movie about a future moon landing. Those people had no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas(if they had ANY hi skule) & they had no science or mathematics degrees.

In the movie, the moon landing was predicted to occur 145 years later, in the year 2100, only in error by 131 years, & 10+ TIMES the actual time span.

As bad a prediction as the movie made, it pales in comparison to other mathematics errors that "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has made of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES.

It is easily understood that "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa & it has no science or mathematics degrees.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#721 Apr 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific concensus is that Man **HAS** contributed greatly to climate change (massive increases in CO2, depletion of carbon sinks, etc).
Show me a link about that consensus? And make sure it's not a Government funded or al Gore funded study.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#722 Apr 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Donít talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue, the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention.
Is the issue Climate Change exists? You are an Alarmist. Who is saying the climate doesn't change and go through cycles? Now what do you say to the Scientists that say it's not caused by man? Yes the Scientists that are not on a Government payroll. Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. And the Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 19 min Subduction Zone 164,345
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 2 hr SoE 178,617
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 2 hr thetruth 19,066
How can we prove God exists, or does not? 4 hr GTID62 86
Poll Do you believe the universe is granular? (Aug '11) 5 hr cpshrivastava 31
has science finally debunked the 'god' myth? 5 hr Zog Has-fallen 11
News British Ban Teaching Creationism As Science, Sh... (Jul '14) 9 hr goonsquad 162
More from around the web