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

#1055 May 2, 2013
The list of locations that have received record May snowfall from a storm that brought up to 2 feet of snow over the central Rockies continues to grow.

The storm is still going on Thursday and could reach even more unlikely locations over the Plains, Midwest and the South before it is all said and done.

Omaha, Neb., Mason City, Iowa, and Rochester, Minn., are but only several cities that have been clobbered by their biggest May snowfall on record. In many cases in the major cities in the Plains, those records date back to the 1800s.

Just remember it's the warming causing the freezing and if it's warming it's still caused by the warming...LOL

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#1056 May 2, 2013
I remember when Global Warming meant the climate was warming. Now, it means changing; I love progress!

What's not to love about global warming?

Brian_G
I love CO2
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#1057 May 2, 2013
recked car fire wrote:
The list of locations that have received record May snowfall from a storm that brought up to 2 feet of snow over the central Rockies continues to grow.
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).

Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1058 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).
Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.
LOL...LOL....LOL...get some help, please stay in your bunker!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1059 May 2, 2013
In the Northern hemisphere we should expect "Global" warming to start soon! Then towards the end of the year into the first part of next year more "Global" cooling.
THESE USED TO BE CALLED SEASONS!
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1060 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).
Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.
Further proof of CAGW.
Further proof of CAGW Hoax.

Too funny that both sides of the debate will use this argument while claiming the other is UNscientific :-)

“NOTHING GOOD EVERY CAME OUT OF”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

West Plains

#1061 May 2, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>What is a "normal" cycle? Weather and climate are not predictable.
The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017 - as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.
The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used. The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections. These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000. The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average - within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C. By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C - within a range of 0.28-0.59.
But if it increased by a degree over 200 years, who cares? And that doesn't prove it's man-made.
Your answer seemed a little piqued. I hope it was nothing I posted. I am just trying to learn a bit more about this subject and asking questions is the best way to do so.

Perhaps "natural cylce" would have been a better choice of words. None the less I did not see your answer. Perhaps I missed it in there somewhere.

Thank you for the interesting information. I have not seen this.

Well, I suppose I care. Much the same as I might care to know about house fires, especially if I have a neighbor that likes to smoke in bed. I may not be able to control his smoking, but I can be prepared in case it gets out of hand.

In any event, the data shows a warming trend that has caused concern for many and there is much more evidence besides these models that this trend is having some impact on our environment. So, it might be important to know about these sorts of things regardless of the cause. But, I am skeptical that a species so capable of manipulating the environment and with a population at 7 billion and growing wouldn't have an impact on the environment that might cause a temperature change. Natural phenomenon can do it. You have already mentioned air pollution as something you are concerned with. Air pollution seems to be the main suspect in warming.

I do find myself leaning on the idea that the suggested regulatory offerings of remediation would not work. I don't think they are as sustainable and functional as they claim to be.

All in all, I accept the data that indicates a global increase in temperature. I am not convinced that there is no anthropogenic origin at least in part, but I am open to new ideas and information on both accounts. In my opinion, under such acceptance, I best efforts might be trained on technical solutions and research in the energy industry rather than on regulatory answers. Brian G. points out that such regulatory efforts would have some adverse effects on the more economically challenged poor people in this country and perhaps everywhere. His point seems reasonable to me and certainly would need to be taken seriously regarding legislation, but none of these things answer the question of human influence on the climate. I will end here as I have already made a fairly wordy post and maybe it will leave an opening for some profitable response.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1062 May 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text> I am just trying to learn a bit more about this subject and asking questions is the best way to do so.
Yes, this sight may be a good place to start for understanding the psychology employed by the keepers of the faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1063 May 2, 2013
As for the science behind CAGW; a single source my not be so easy to come by.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1064 May 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
In any event, the data shows a warming trend that has caused concern for many and there is much more evidence besides these models that this trend is having some impact on our environment. So, it might be important to know about these sorts of things regardless of the cause..
Yes, a warming trend and it's impact on the environment.

Much of the raw data that is used to suggest the Earth has been warming is classified as 'proprietary' which means there is not a single scientific academy that can verify the conclusions of Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich England by the Thames.

As for the "models"; a good place to start in understanding their relevance is to read the remarks associated with the computer code in 'THE HARRY README' files that can be found in: FOI2009.ZIP.

It quickly becomes clear that the data is not recoverable... As has been confirmed by Dr. jones.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1065 May 3, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Written by Gregg Easterbrook is an American writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The New Republic. 7 years ago, sounds like Gore, let's not debate this. easterbrook was big on cutting the space program, and writes books, he is all about the money. NASA has been turned into a Government scare tank due to it's funding.
And? All the more reason to consider the consensus is valid.

So you are saying that NASA is falsifying data? Data confirmed and repeated by climatologists from Japan, Sweden, The UK, Russia, Australia

Or are you one that does not believe the claims of science when they interfere with vested interest and commercial profits?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1066 May 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No atmospheric tests
.
<quoted text>None of those "experiments/test/simulat ions" have shown a climate change or are compelling tests of climate change mitigation. Name one you like; we can discuss it.
Are you surprised NASA would fear monger when it can get more taxpayer cash?
How much atmosphere? Unless performed in vacuum the test are performed in atmosphere

Opinion, and the thing about opinions is that they are like a$$holes, everyone has one. You have been given links to thousands of such tests and totally ignored them. I am done dealing with ignorance.

I am surprised that you seem to be claiming that NASA is falsifying data.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1067 May 3, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, many thousands of CO2 experiments have been conducted with the same results. Replicated by independent tests world wide. More CO2 is beneficial to life on Earth.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
Perhaps you should have pointed Brian at those 137,000 results. He may have found them interesting but more than likely would deny that they existed.

As to beneficial, it depends on what life your are testing for. Certainly not the life that humanity has come to expect for the last few hundred years.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1068 May 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Ice doesn't disappear, it melts.
I'm looking forward to polar ice melting all summer long, then we'll have shorter routes to Europe and Asia. Think of all the great stuff buried under ice caps. What's not to love about global warming?
Melted ice is NOT ice – Melted ice is WATER. Therefore the ice is no more, it has disappeared. It may return as different ice but it is NOT the same ice therefore the original ice has disappeared.

”Ice doesn't disappear” Is this is the level of your logic?

Forget the hype. Try stretching an elastic band between say New York and Schiphol on a globe. Now please advise whether it bends north up the coast of the US and Canada, stretches east over the ice cap and then heads south to Schiphol or whether it stretches over the most direct/shortest route. True that planes heading east from the US can take advantage of the jet stream for a more efficient and possible faster flight, the same does not apply for the return journey. You should also note that because of global warming effects the jet stream has migrated south few hundred miles, hence the more extreme weather being experienced I northern Europe. Planes now have no need to divert several hundred miles north to cadge a cheap lift but this means that the increased headwind makes return journeys more difficult.

And do you think that following continued melting of the ice caps and riding sea levels (caused by magic non disappearing ice) you would be able to land a plane in the waters of Schiphol airport?

You should also note that CO2 reduces the efficiency of engines so you air fair would cost more.

What great stuff? Ice and rock? Bacteria? Deceptacons? Alien v predator castles? oh wait a moment you were once again considering facetious comment as being valid – well done…

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1069 May 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Science uses experiments to test and refine theories. There's never been an experiment that shows a man made change in climate or climate change mitigation. Dan might be right, those promoting prototype climate change mitigation without any experimental evidence for their policies, might be acting out of good intentions; let's look at their policy.
They want to tax and restrict fossil fuel use. This forces up fuel and energy prices, harming the poor. And we haven't seen any evidence it will help the climate either.
When a falling brick lands on your head you don’t need experiment to know that it came form above.

Measurements show that as humanity increased the use of fossil fuels CO2 levels have increased correspondingly over and above the normal fluctuation. There is now no argument with these measurements, they are taken globally by diverse methods and by different organisations with different agendas, all agree on the conclusion. Experiments confirm those measurements, there is no argument with these experiments except from those with a vested interest and often profiting from CO2 in one way or another.

Fossil fuel is taxed, depending on the country/state depends on how much tax is levied. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_taxes_in_th...

So what you are objecting to is the cost rather than the facts?

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1070 May 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
...
What's not to love about global warming?
Brian_G
I love CO2
Well there is you…
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1071 May 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
As to beneficial, it depends on what life your are testing for. Certainly not the life that humanity has come to expect for the last few hundred years.
"Certainty" is in abundance among the believers of CAGW.
CO2 is vital to life on Earth... that is certain.
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1072 May 3, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Perhaps you should have pointed Brian at those 137,000 results...
Perhaps I did.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#1073 May 3, 2013
drink the kkk-aid wrote:
CO2 is vital to life on Earth...
Has any AGW advocate stated that CO2 should go to 0ppm, so that life becomes impossible on Earth? Of course not.
Has any AGW advocate stated that CO2 should go back to pre-industrial levels? No.
Has any AGW advocate stated that increasing CO2 should be limited to avoid drastic & other unforeseen climate shocks? Yes.

Indeed,'drink the kkk-aid' is very much like the kkk, who look for reasons to sate their blood-lust.
'drink the kkk-aid' is making up reasons against AGW advocates that will validate its desire to kill.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1074 May 3, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
<quoted text>
"Certainty" is in abundance among the believers of CAGW.
CO2 is vital to life on Earth... that is certain.
CO2 in is required for plants but is an asphyxiant to oxygen breathing life.

It’s a balancing act that over the millennia the earth has managed well enough until the last 150 years and interference from mankind.

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) 4 min Tinka 117,499
Darwin on the rocks 2 hr replaytime 190
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr DanFromSmithville 137,387
The Satanic Character of Social Darwinism 10 hr Bluenose 659
Humans DID evolve from apes! 15 hr Daz Ma Taz 3
Why are there no dinosaur pen is fossil? 16 hr John K 3
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 20 hr Dogen 174,462

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE