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

[Nuggin]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>Absolutely not.

Guess what, dipshit. You can't have it both ways.

You can't disagree that the argument is about how much human activity is influencing warming AND then claim you don't disagree with that statement.

[Shubee]

Freeman Dyson is an obvious dissident. He thinks the human contribution to global warming is negligible.
everythingimportant.org/climategate

[Subduction Zone]

Shubee wrote:

Freeman Dyson is an obvious dissident. He thinks the human contribution to global warming is negligible.
everythingimportant.org/climategate

I love it when Shoob proves himself to be wrong by using his own website as a reference. It is extremely strong evidence that he has nothing except for quote mines at best. Someone with real evidence would link directly to the evidence.

Shoob the Boob shoots himself in the foot again. And I bet he does not even know why.

[Shubee]

Subduction Zone wrote:

There is no real debate about whether man is changing climate. The answer is a resounding yes.

What an idiot. You believe the propaganda and thus you insist on imposing your ignorance on everyone else. Even a fool can see that dissident climate scientists exist. everythingimportant.org/climategate

[Subduction Zone]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>What an idiot. You believe the propaganda and thus you insist on imposing your ignorance on everyone else. Even a fool can see that dissident climate scientists exist. everythingimportant.org/climategate

No. Wrong. And you should not be calling anyone an idiot.

A person with Down's Syndrome is an over achiever next to you.

And thank you for continuing to bust your own posts.

As the saying goes: What a Maroon!

[Chimney1]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>What an idiot. You believe the propaganda and thus you insist on imposing your ignorance on everyone else. Even a fool can see that dissident climate scientists exist. everythingimportant.org/climategate

The question is not whether legitimate skeptics exist. Dyson is not one, BTW, he merely questions whether the impact of mitigating climate change is more expensive than simply adapting to it, and he questions the magnitude of its likely impact...and even scientific dissent is fine, so long as it can be justified rationally.

But the question that interests me is why once again, overwhelming skepticism comes from religious quarters. Now, I can understand why you guys might be touchy about evolution as it contradicts literal Genesis directly. But I cannot see why there should be any scriptural argument against climate change. Isn't messing with the planet's ecosystem to be expected of sinful, ignorant humans?

Or is it fixing the mess that is futile, since that is going to be Jesus' job?

[PHD]

Subduction Zone wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try idiot. All you have demonstrated in this post that you know nothing of science.
Here are some serious questions, do you know what the Greenhouse effect is? Do you know when it was discovered? Did you know that to certain colors of light that CO2 is opaque?
In fact here is a very short video that demonstrates how CO2 traps heat:http://www.youtube.com/wa tch?v=SeYfl45X1wo

All scientific science fiction useless cut and paste babble. Do show your entire peer reviewed published work. Idiot would be a cut above your mental status. Your descriptive name hasn't been discovered at this time so the less than a zero for you will suffice.

[Subduction Zone]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>All scientific science fiction useless cut and paste babble. Do show your entire peer reviewed published work. Idiot would be a cut above your mental status. Your descriptive name hasn't been discovered at this time so the less than a zero for you will suffice.

What? Do you even know what a Subduction Zone is? Of course they have been discovered. We know where they are. We even have "pictures" of them. Very precise pictures that show that they look exactly as they are supposed to look.

[Chimney1]

PHD wrote:

<quoted text>All scientific science fiction useless cut and paste babble. Do show your entire peer reviewed published work. Idiot would be a cut above your mental status. Your descriptive name hasn't been discovered at this time so the less than a zero for you will suffice.

Sorry "PHD", but CO2's opacity to certain wavelengths of infrared radiation is not even controversial and can be checked with a spectrometer any day of the week. Its a fact known for over a century, which is why Arrhenius' original hypothesis about the CO2 greenhouse effect is almost as ancient.

There are plenty of peer reviews of climate models using this uncontested fact as the most important driver, but mixed with large uncertainties about the positive and negative potential feedbacks from the initial forcing based on CO2 opacity and density in the atmosphere.

There is some controversy over the accuracy of the assumptions leading to the total impact effect. Even most skeptics do not question these basics, only the magnitude of the impact. Shubee mentioned Dyson as one. But these positions are not doctrinaire, or should not be. As more information arrives, we can begin to assess which models are more accurately reflecting reality and so which should be more reliable. The famous case of the scientist hired by the Koch Brothers, Richard Muller, who was one skeptic who changed his views after reviewing the latest data.

[Shubee]

Chimney1 wrote:

The question is not whether legitimate skeptics exist. Dyson is not one, BTW,…

It's a legitimate question for me and, as an educator, I think the religious zeal that many have to be willfully blind and ignorant to what the scientific dissidents are saying about global warming is appalling.

Chimney1 wrote:

But the question that interests me is why once again, overwhelming skepticism comes from religious quarters.

I can answer that. Believers in God know that they're called to oppose the religious beliefs of Darwinism. So when self-professed heretics like Freeman Dyson says things like, "Here I am opposing the holy brotherhood of climate model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens who believe the numbers predicted by the computer models," we intuit a pattern. We expect that the same superficial thinking that dominates Darwinism is also present in global warming fanaticism.

Chimney1 wrote:

Now, I can understand why you guys might be touchy about evolution as it contradicts literal Genesis directly. But I cannot see why there should be any scriptural argument against climate change. Isn't messing with the planet's ecosystem to be expected of sinful, ignorant humans?

There are no scriptural arguments against climate change. And messing with the planet's ecosystem is expected of sinful, ignorant humans. Perhaps that's why Scripture predicts that the time will come for God to destroy those who destroy the earth.

"The nations were angry,
and your wrath has come.
The time has come for judging the dead,
and for rewarding your servants the prophets
and your people who revere your name,
both great and small---
and for destroying those who destroy the earth."
Revelation 11:18

[Shubee]

Chimney1 wrote:

The famous case of the scientist hired by the Koch Brothers, Richard Muller, who was one skeptic who changed his views after reviewing the latest data.

Why should we be surprised that many are turning to prostitution in this economy?

[SpaceBlues]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text> Why should we be surprised that many are turning to prostitution in this economy?

Are you talking about Lance Armstrong?

Yeah you forgot the days under Bush. You are not just anti science but anti people.

[Shubee]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Are you talking about Lance Armstrong?

No. My point is that the Koch Brothers are infamous polluters and if they must hire a scientist, it's probably because they need a scientifically literate prostitute to falsify science.
http://everythingimportant.org

[SpaceBlues]

Shubee wrote:

<quoted text>No. My point is that the Koch Brothers are infamous polluters and if they must hire a scientist, it's probably because they need a scientifically literate prostitute to falsify science.
http[delete]

haha Professor Muller and his team, including a Nobel Laurate, work at UC-Berkeley.

The point was that the Koch bros funded a skeptic who got convinced by the truth that the scientists have been right all along and actually extended their work back to 250 years ago to be sure.

They did not falsify science. Go read for yourself.

Who falsify science? Deniers like you try to but don't succeed. Isn't lying a sin in your world?

[Shubee]

SpaceBlues wrote:

The point was that the Koch bros funded a skeptic who got convinced by the truth

Thanks for overwhelming confirming my recent testimony about the religious zeal that many have to be willfully blind and ignorant. I couldn't ask for a more glowing affirmation.

[Shubee]

overwhelmingly confirming

[SpaceBlues]

Shubee wrote:

overwhelmingly confirming

Well, there you were stopped from lying again.

Your mirror is too small to see yourself.

[PHD]

Chimney1 wrote:

<quoted text>
Sorry "PHD", but CO2's opacity to certain wavelengths of infrared radiation is not even controversial and can be checked with a spectrometer any day of the week. Its a fact known for over a century, which is why Arrhenius' original hypothesis about the CO2 greenhouse effect is almost as ancient.
There are plenty of peer reviews of climate models using this uncontested fact as the most important driver, but mixed with large uncertainties about the positive and negative potential feedbacks from the initial forcing based on CO2 opacity and density in the atmosphere.
There is some controversy over the accuracy of the assumptions leading to the total impact effect. Even most skeptics do not question these basics, only the magnitude of the impact. Shubee mentioned Dyson as one. But these positions are not doctrinaire, or should not be. As more information arrives, we can begin to assess which models are more accurately reflecting reality and so which should be more reliable. The famous case of the scientist hired by the Koch Brothers, Richard Muller, who was one skeptic who changed his views after reviewing the latest data.

Well then prove it by your peer reviewed published work. Oh who and how was the instrumentation calibrated by and method?

[PHD]

SpaceBlues wrote:

<quoted text>Well, there you were stopped from lying again.
Your mirror is too small to see yourself.

So Commander TROLL continues to answer directly or indirectly you keep the topix forums entertained and free at that.

[sickofit]

So they want the fact there is global warming and the lie that there is not?? Why teach lies to kids?