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.

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

Home, sweet home.

#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.
Tyler in Wonderland

Philadelphia, PA

#765 Apr 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Our noses and eyes have evolved to ignore CO2 so carbon dioxide is odorless and invisible.
Indeed. We humans have also evolved such that hurricanes and tsunamis are invisible and intangible to us. The death tolls for such disasters are just made up statistics pushed by the media.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#766 Apr 8, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
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.
Hey missing brain Ricardo, do you read what you post?

Of course, not!
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#767 Apr 8, 2013
Hermann Flohn in 1980 published:

What has happened can happen again; after a series of catastrophic
weather extremes, it would lead to a nearly inconceivable displacement
of climatic zones by 400-800 km (or more), definitely affecting mankind as a
whole.
The author firmly believes that this risk is unacceptable and must be
avoided even at very high cost. It is at least as large as, but probably much larger
than, all the risks involved in the transitional use of nuclear energy under special
precautions. The risk of a global warming can be avoided if decisions regarding
future energy policies and all their consequences are carefully planned and can
be executed, under an international agreement, without undue delay.

P.S. He's the father of IPCC in my language.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#768 Apr 8, 2013
"little more than guesswork." Read Earth's Climate History, it's always changing. Now come out of your bunker. It's safe outdoors. LOL
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#769 Apr 8, 2013
More from Hermann Flohn in 1980 .. a doubling
of the CO, content could be accompanied by quite serious regional consequences,
some of them benign, but others deleterious. These consequences
would be more profound than all climatic changes mankind has experienced
during the last 10,000 years. To avoid serious risks, provision should be made
to avoid exceeding about 450 ppm, as a threshold value of the real CO2, content.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#770 Apr 8, 2013
Tyler in Wonderland wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. We humans have also evolved such that hurricanes and tsunamis are invisible and intangible to us. The death tolls for such disasters are just made up statistics pushed by the media.
We are more populated now, of course more will die. How did the media report them 200 years ago?
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#771 Apr 8, 2013
Not CO but CO2:

a doubling
of the CO2, content could be accompanied by quite serious regional consequences,
some of them benign, but others deleterious. These consequences
would be more profound than all climatic changes mankind has experienced
during the last 10,000 years. To avoid serious risks, provision should be made
to avoid exceeding about 450 ppm, as a threshold value of the real CO2, content.[H. Flohn, 1980]
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#772 Apr 8, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
"little more than guesswork." Read Earth's Climate History, it's always changing. Now come out of your bunker. It's safe outdoors. LOL
If so, write your own books ... LOL.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#773 Apr 8, 2013
Tyler in Wonderland wrote:
<quoted text>
Indeed. We humans have also evolved such that hurricanes and tsunamis are invisible and intangible to us. The death tolls for such disasters are just made up statistics pushed by the media.
Really? I guess you don't remember what happened in Japan, FL, etc.

Re CO2, have you not researched high CO2 poisoning?

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#774 Apr 8, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
Not CO but CO2:
a doubling
of the CO2, content could be accompanied by quite serious regional consequences,
some of them benign, but others deleterious. These consequences
would be more profound than all climatic changes mankind has experienced
during the last 10,000 years. To avoid serious risks, provision should be made
to avoid exceeding about 450 ppm, as a threshold value of the real CO2, content.[H. Flohn, 1980]
LOL

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) 1 min Chilli J 173,576
News Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 1 min DanFromSmithville 178,695
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr Dogen 143,913
Satan's Lies and Scientist Guys (Sep '14) 9 hr Chilli J 13
How would creationists explain... (Nov '14) 16 hr Chimney1 583
News Intelligent design 17 hr Paul Porter1 22
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 17 hr Paul Porter1 421
More from around the web