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 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#733 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp …. Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.”— Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.
He's a journalist, not a scientist, although he does have a science degree.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#734 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”— U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.
*“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”— Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.
The first is a scientist, although he's also a religious nut: a "God's in his heaven, so global warming can't be a problem" creationist as I said before.

The second is a retired chemical engineer- expertise on climate science, none.

Getting desperate, aren't you?

Fake petitions, phoney lists and a handful of cranks and religious nut.

You deniers are so gullible.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#735 Apr 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
He's a journalist, not a scientist, although he does have a science degree.
Your hero, the great Gore: His grades during his first two years put him in the lower one-fifth of the class. During his sophomore year, he reportedly spent much of his time watching television, shooting pool, and occasionally smoking marijuana.

Gore doesn't know shit about science, his background is politics, he's used to lying. Gore has no scientific background. That's why he never debates anyone about Global warming. He could be exposed and lose money. Why do you lie so much?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#736 Apr 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
The first is a scientist, although he's also a religious nut: a "God's in his heaven, so global warming can't be a problem" creationist as I said before.
The second is a retired chemical engineer- expertise on climate science, none.
Getting desperate, aren't you?
Fake petitions, phoney lists and a handful of cranks and religious nut.
You deniers are so gullible.
What does your hate of religion have to do with global warming? Do you think if there is global warming it makes a difference to a religion? Why are so many alarmists atheists? Seems like Global warming with the Rev Gore has become your missing piece.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#737 Apr 5, 2013
The fact is that CO2 is not a pollutant. CO2 is a colorless and odorless gas, exhaled at high concentrations by each of us, and a key component of the biosphere's life cycle. Plants do so much better with more CO2 that greenhouse operators often increase the CO2 concentrations by factors of three or four to get better growth. This is no surprise since plants and animals evolved when CO2 concentrations were about 10 times larger than they are today. Better plant varieties, chemical fertilizers and agricultural management contributed to the great increase in agricultural yields of the past century, but part of the increase almost certainly came from additional CO2 in the atmosphere.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#738 Apr 5, 2013
Why is there so much passion about global warming, and why has the issue become so vexing that the American Physical Society, from which Dr. Giaever resigned a few months ago, refused the seemingly reasonable request by many of its members to remove the word "incontrovertible" from its description of a scientific issue? There are several reasons, but a good place to start is the old question "cui bono?" Or the modern update, "Follow the money."

Alarmism over climate is of great benefit to many, providing government funding for academic research and a reason for government bureaucracies to grow. Alarmism also offers an excuse for governments to raise taxes, taxpayer-funded subsidies for businesses that understand how to work the political system, and a lure for big donations to charitable foundations promising to save the planet. Lysenko and his team lived very well, and they fiercely defended their dogma and the privileges it brought them.

Speaking for many scientists and engineers who have looked carefully and independently at the science of climate, we have a message to any candidate for public office: There is no compelling scientific argument for drastic action to "decarbonize" the world's economy. Even if one accepts the inflated climate forecasts of the IPCC, aggressive greenhouse-gas control policies are not justified economically.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#739 Apr 5, 2013
Ricardo is missing a piece: a brain.

http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#740 Apr 5, 2013
An antidote to ricardo-poison?

Here is a summary of global warming and climate change myths, sorted by recent popularity vs what science says, all 174 of them.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#741 Apr 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>To ricardo:

Gullible, aren't you?
There were never 650 scientists at the conference.
It's just a list of scientists who have said something James Inhofe views as sceptical of AGW (even if they say they believe in the risks of AGW and ask to be removed from the list).
A bit of Soviet style propaganda- you swallowed it.
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/17/mo...
Right on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#742 Apr 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>To ricardo:

The first is a scientist, although he's also a religious nut: a "God's in his heaven, so global warming can't be a problem" creationist as I said before.
The second is a retired chemical engineer- expertise on climate science, none.
Getting desperate, aren't you?
Fake petitions, phoney lists and a handful of cranks and religious nut.
You deniers are so gullible.
Right on.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/argument.php

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#743 Apr 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Ricardo is missing a piece: a brain.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/sha...
Notice the passion from the alarmist, he has to call names and act childish. An insult to your religion? It's the Hoax of the century, Gore is flying around in his private jet visiting his mansions while you alarmists sit back worrying about the sky falling....LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#744 Apr 5, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
How did you handle Y2K? LOL

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#745 Apr 6, 2013
In real science, a treatment or medicine is experimentally tested before its approved for use. Climate change mitigation hasn't been demonstrated so why would you prescribe snake oil for your planet's health?
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#746 Apr 7, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
In real science
When a troll has to preface a statement with 'in real'.. it indicates a complete lack of reality for which he is trying to compensate with words.
Brian_G wrote:
a treatment or medicine is experimentally tested before its approved for use.
And when you have only one patient, who do you try the 'clinical trial' on?
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change mitigation hasn't been demonstrated
Actually it has as every variation in solar insolation, aerosols and GHGs shows a corresponding change in surface temperature. Not only in theory but in experimental evidence. The factors are now well understood and not debated.
Brian_G wrote:
so why would you prescribe snake oil for your planet's health?
Because of the consequences of leaving the problem untreated.

Your post is really nonsensical and not really worth rebutting but there may be some weak minded readers with limited reasoning skills that might think it has substance so I have shown the errors in it.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#747 Apr 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
When a troll has to preface a statement with 'in real'.. it indicates a complete lack of reality for which he is trying to compensate with words.
I'm guessing he meant all the overstated climate models that have recently been debunked. Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted and evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming. This is the possibility they do not allow to be considered, because it would end all of their policy-changing goals. Pluto is also warmer, Can you please send in more money to Gore so he can fix it?

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#748 Apr 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
When a troll has to preface a statement with 'in real'.. it indicates a complete lack of reality for which he is trying to compensate with words.
As opposed to the pseudoscience of climate change mitigation.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
And when you have only one patient, who do you try the 'clinical trial' on?
That patient, you give your experimental treatment and stop, then reverse the treatment if possible and try again, recording symptoms and metabolic functions while searching for causal correlations over time. If there is only one patient then single subject experimental paradigms are used; hopefully your physician won't give up on science.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Actually it has as every variation in solar insolation, aerosols and GHGs shows a corresponding change in surface temperature. Not only in theory but in experimental evidence. The factors are now well understood and not debated.
Some have been experimentally tested, particulates in the atmosphere for example. They are short lived as they fall out of the air, and local. Man made CO2 on climate change hasn't been experimentally tested.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Because of the consequences of leaving the problem untreated.
Like doctors bleeding patients? That's what I mean by doctors giving up on science, they had this theory about humors, but they didn't test it experimentally.

.
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Your post is really nonsensical and not really worth rebutting but there may be some weak minded readers with limited reasoning skills that might think it has substance so I have shown the errors in it.
Thanks for trying. Do you have more questions?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#749 Apr 7, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Notice the passion from the alarmist[name calling], he has to call names[sic] and act childish[name calling]. An insult to your religion? It's the Hoax of the century, Gore is flying around in his private jet visiting his mansions while you alarmists[name calling] sit back worrying[name calling] about the sky falling[name calling]....LOL
LOL. You did all this name calling just because I called you Ricardo.

Why do you use Ricardo in your name? Oh, it must be because you miss a piece called brain.

You probably don't remember our history but you are talking about Al Gore, long-time member of Congress, The Vice President of USA, presidential candidate, author of books, Nobel Laurate, journalist, etc. Jealous, aren't you?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#750 Apr 7, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>To b_gone:
When a troll has to preface a statement with 'in real'.. it indicates a complete lack of reality for which he is trying to compensate with words.
<quoted text>
And when you have only one patient, who do you try the 'clinical trial' on?
<quoted text>
Actually it has as every variation in solar insolation, aerosols and GHGs shows a corresponding change in surface temperature. Not only in theory but in experimental evidence. The factors are now well understood and not debated.
<quoted text>
Because of the consequences of leaving the problem untreated.
Your post is really nonsensical and not really worth rebutting but there may be some weak minded readers with limited reasoning skills that might think it has substance so I have shown the errors in it.
Another biggie is that these deniers without science attack climate science as if it is from another planet. A foreign science.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#751 Apr 7, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I'm guessing he meant all the overstated climate models that have recently been debunked. Temperatures have not risen nearly as much as almost all of the climate models predicted and evidence that CO2 is not nearly as strong a climate driver as the IPCC has been assuming.
Temperatures are within the range of the model predictions.

Which means that the slow rise in temperature could be just natural variation.

Which means that in the next decade we could see temperatures at the upper end of model predictions.

If the temperatures are outside the range of model predictions next decade, then you'll have a case.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#752 Apr 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL. You did all this name calling just because I called you Ricardo.
No. What name calling? I called you an Alarmist. That is what you are. You sure are sensitive after posting your insult. Why so much passion? Is the sky falling soon?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 min DanFromSmithville 143,944
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 2 hr DanFromSmithville 173,957
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 6 hr Igor Trip 178,702
Science News NOT related to evolution (Jul '09) 16 hr macumazahn 1,248
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 16 hr macumazahn 20,900
News Pastafarians rejoice! Deep sea creature floatin... Wed karl44 1
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) Wed dollarsbill 14
More from around the web