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

Level 7

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

#62 Feb 9, 2013
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#63 Feb 9, 2013
Freeman Dyson is an obvious dissident. He thinks the human contribution to global warming is negligible.
everythingimportant.org/climategate

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#64 Feb 9, 2013
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#65 Feb 9, 2013
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

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#66 Feb 9, 2013
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!

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#67 Feb 9, 2013
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

Overton, TX

#68 Feb 10, 2013
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=SeYfl45X1woXX
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.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#70 Feb 10, 2013
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.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#71 Feb 10, 2013
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#72 Feb 10, 2013
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
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#73 Feb 10, 2013
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

Houston, TX

#74 Feb 10, 2013
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#75 Feb 10, 2013
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

Houston, TX

#76 Feb 10, 2013
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?
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#77 Feb 10, 2013
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.
Level 6

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#78 Feb 10, 2013
overwhelmingly confirming
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#79 Feb 10, 2013
Shubee wrote:
overwhelmingly confirming
Well, there you were stopped from lying again.

Your mirror is too small to see yourself.
PHD

Overton, TX

#80 Feb 10, 2013
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

Overton, TX

#81 Feb 10, 2013
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

Faribault, MN

#82 Feb 10, 2013
So they want the fact there is global warming and the lie that there is not?? Why teach lies to kids?

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) 6 min TurkanaBoy 134,815
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) 32 min Brian_G 13,643
Atheism - A Non Prophet Organisation (Mar '11) 1 hr Gillette 999
How would creationists explain... 11 hr Dogen 449
Intelligent Design: Still Dead [EvolutionBlog] 15 hr geezerjock 1
Why Are There No Transitional Animals Today? (Mar '09) 15 hr The Dude 514
Evolutionists staes that white people are more ... (Jun '06) 18 hr spiderlover 77
More from around the web