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

Feb 5, 2013 Full story: Verde Independent 1,644

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.

Full Story

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

Location hidden

#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

Location hidden

#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?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#753 Apr 7, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
<quoted text>LOL.
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?
What does Al Gore have to do with Science? He flunked science, he might be dumber then you.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#754 Apr 7, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No they are not within range. They have been way overstated. NOT even close. We can't predict weather, have you ever watched the news? LOL...
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#755 Apr 7, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
In real science.......
In real science, people spend lots of time, money & effort, training & learning to be scientists. "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no science or mathematics degrees. "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" didn't even have upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa. "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" read the 8th grade science book, first page. After that, the science book was all Greek to "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" that it couldn't unnerstan'........ Greek (letter variables) in the equations.

"brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" does have math errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES..... which it is proud of. Oh, no. "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" is proud of its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#756 Apr 7, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>No they are not within range.
Yes they are.

http://www.realclimate.org/images/model122.jp...
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#757 Apr 8, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>No they are not within range. They have been way overstated. NOT even close.
Please provide evidence from a respectable science journal.

Of course, you cannot because no serious scientist has made this claim.

Busted again.
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text> We can't predict weather, have you ever watched the news? LOL...
We cannot predict the weather as WELL as we predict climate. But the issue is NOT predicting climate but predicting the temperature of the surface in balance.

A simpler system with a fixed and well monitored influx (insolation from the sun) and a fairly well understood barrier to outflow from aerosols and GHGs.

Of course, by showing that you don't see a difference between climate and weather prediction, you pretty well establish yourself as anti-science and ignorant so I won't bother debating it with you.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#758 Apr 8, 2013
Our noses and eyes have evolved to ignore CO2 so carbon dioxide is odorless and invisible.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#761 Apr 8, 2013
Global climate models may be overstating the warming properties of black carbon particles, according to new research led by the University of California, Davis. The study will be published online Aug. 31 in the journal Science.

Why do the Alarmist have to lie so much?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#762 Apr 8, 2013
The draft of a U.N. climate change report due to be published in 2014 has been leaked, and it shows that the four temperature models the U.N. used from 1990 to 2012 vastly overestimated the warming of the earth during that time.http://www.breitbart.com/ Big-Peace/2013/01/28/U-N-Repor t-Says-Global-Warming-Predicti ons-Overstated-The-Problem

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#763 Apr 8, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Please provide evidence from a respectable science journal.
Of course, you cannot because no serious scientist has made this claim.
You are busted. "Journal Science"

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#764 Apr 8, 2013
It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.
If your prediction (forecast) is wrong; your science is wrong. Unlike the IPCC, they cannot avoid the problem by calling them projections, not predictions. They can and do avoid accountability.
Some experts acknowledge that regional climate forecasts are no better than short term weather forecasts. New Scientist reports that Tim Palmer, a leading climate modeler at the European Centre for Medium – Range Weather Forecasts in Reading England saying,“I don’t want to undermine the IPCC, but the forecasts, especially for regional climate change, are immensely uncertain.” In an attempt to claim some benefit, we’re told,“…he does not doubt that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has done a good job alerting the world to the problem of global climate change. But he and his fellow climate scientists are acutely aware that the IPCC’s predictions of how the global change will affect local climates are little more than guesswork. The IPCC have deliberately misled the world about the nature, cause and threat of climate change and deceived about the accuracy of their predictions (projections), for a political agenda.

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
Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 23 min JM_Brazil 133,981
How would creationists explain... 4 hr Hidingfromyou 434
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 6 hr Chimney1 678
Science News (Sep '13) Wed positronium 2,944
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Dec 22 Chimney1 13,624
Creationism coming to Ohio classrooms? Not with... Dec 20 nobody 7
24 hour dental emergency (Nov '13) Dec 19 Zach 4
More from around the web