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.

“Be strong ...”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

Location hidden

#1149 May 9, 2013
Dont drink the koolaid wrote:
Dear ChristineM,
one other little thing, if I said something that was childish or insulting I am very sorry.
-koolaid
Oh sorry, but I am not mind reader.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1150 May 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
From what I am reading here, Global Warming deniers rely on fear and ignorance and a fair amount of politicizing to boot.
We fear new energy taxes will harm the economy and you fear catastrophic man made climate change. This is where we differ; we've actually seen high taxes stunt productivity and growth but we've never seen a man made climate catastrophe.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
Since I found examples for you, in good fashion you move the goal posts. I never said that the computer models were designed for a specific finding. I said they were a form of experimentation and they are.
Every one of your "examples" listed a caution that computer models can't replace real world tests.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
You questioned whether they were examples of experimentation not what types of experimentation they would be used for. You sort of enjoy deploying ham handed misdirection don't you.
You're writing about virtual experiments and I'm writing about real experiments. I haven't moved any goal post; I'm still waiting to see any compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.

.
DanFromSmithville wrote:
So you are a credible and experienced enough scientist to make such a wide ranging conclusion about computer modeling? I don't see it. Depending on the reseach, they can be the best choice of experiment for the real world.
To each their own. I've never claimed to be a scientist, I'm just waiting for scientists to publish a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.

Dan likes computer models, I like lingerie models.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1151 May 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We fear new energy taxes will harm the economy and you fear catastrophic man made climate change. This is where we differ; we've actually seen high taxes stunt productivity and growth but we've never seen a man made climate catastrophe.
.
<quoted text>Every one of your "examples" listed a caution that computer models can't replace real world tests.
.
<quoted text>You're writing about virtual experiments and I'm writing about real experiments. I haven't moved any goal post; I'm still waiting to see any compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>To each their own. I've never claimed to be a scientist, I'm just waiting for scientists to publish a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Dan likes computer models, I like lingerie models.
You like to put words into peoples mouths. Your arguments boil down to sheer politics and hold the facts.

I have never made a statement or even implied what my fears may be if a I have any.

I don't realy believe you. It is the old story of wanting your cake and eating it too. You want all the benefits of modern American life, but you don't want to pay for it. I see it all the time. On the other hand, I have to consider the burden of higher taxes on energy as a legitimate concern, since it is.

I think that if Jesus came back today, you wouldn't believe it was him. Much the same as when provided with any evidence that is contrary to your own beliefs. It is unfortunate the real problems and legitimate concerns get burried under ignorance and politics.

I have made a model or two myself.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1152 May 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We fear new energy taxes will harm the economy and you fear catastrophic man made climate change. This is where we differ; we've actually seen high taxes stunt productivity and growth but we've never seen a man made climate catastrophe.
.
<quoted text>Every one of your "examples" listed a caution that computer models can't replace real world tests.
.
<quoted text>You're writing about virtual experiments and I'm writing about real experiments. I haven't moved any goal post; I'm still waiting to see any compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>To each their own. I've never claimed to be a scientist, I'm just waiting for scientists to publish a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Dan likes computer models, I like lingerie models.
You are saying without benefit of any supporting evidence that computer models do not produce the same quality of evidence as those you refer to as real experiments. A real experiment is just a model. Computer models can provide very robust, usable data. In some instances they may be the only way to get that data.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1153 May 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We fear new energy taxes will harm the economy and you fear catastrophic man made climate change. This is where we differ; we've actually seen high taxes stunt productivity and growth but we've never seen a man made climate catastrophe.
.
<quoted text>Every one of your "examples" listed a caution that computer models can't replace real world tests.
.
<quoted text>You're writing about virtual experiments and I'm writing about real experiments. I haven't moved any goal post; I'm still waiting to see any compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>To each their own. I've never claimed to be a scientist, I'm just waiting for scientists to publish a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Dan likes computer models, I like lingerie models.
All of my references did not list a caution such as you describe. I will say, that you would not want to use the results of a single experiment to draw global conclusions, but that is true of any research.

You are demanding to see tests of climate change mitigation and you have stated you use this as the basis for concluding that anthropogenic or in your case any climate change is a fraud. That makes no sense. You are saying that not be able to stop a problem falcifies the problem itself. How is that logical? So, I guess we need not concern ourselves with a cure for SARS. Since having no cure refutes the existence of SARS.

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1154 May 9, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>You are saying without benefit of any supporting evidence that computer models do not produce the same quality of evidence as those you refer to as real experiments. A real experiment is just a model. Computer models can provide very robust, usable data. In some instances they may be the only way to get that data.
Computer models are rarely accurate when it comes to nature, weather, storms, volcanoes, hurricanes ect. The outcome of the models prediction is only as good as the "what if" information put into it. It is basically just a guess of the "what if" information fed to it. A good example of a computer model being not accurate is the weather computer models and we know they miss many many times. Again computer models go by the "what if this happens" put in to them.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1155 May 9, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>We fear new energy taxes will harm the economy and you fear catastrophic man made climate change. This is where we differ; we've actually seen high taxes stunt productivity and growth but we've never seen a man made climate catastrophe.
.
<quoted text>Every one of your "examples" listed a caution that computer models can't replace real world tests.
.
<quoted text>You're writing about virtual experiments and I'm writing about real experiments. I haven't moved any goal post; I'm still waiting to see any compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>To each their own. I've never claimed to be a scientist, I'm just waiting for scientists to publish a compelling experimental test for climate change mitigation.
Dan likes computer models, I like lingerie models.
There seem to be a lot of people with comments regarding computer models. Most of this information I am very aware of. What seems to be missing is actually addressing the original point. That seems to be an issue of contention not only on this thread but in this forum. I see that you have at least tacitly agreed that computer models are experiments.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1156 May 9, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
The outcome of the models prediction is only as good as the "what if" information put into it.
Yeah. How could we possibly have reached the moon. It was all based on COMPUTER MODELS. So I guess you are one of those 'conspiracy theorists' that believe it was a Hollywood production?

OF course, you don't really show EVIDENCE of any defects in the current models or the models used to reach the moon.

In fact, you don't say ANYTHING meaningful.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1157 May 9, 2013
The USA in the last 12 months has seen the fewest number of tornadoes since at least 1954, and the death tolls from the dangerous storms have dropped dramatically since 2011.

"it's just got to be the warming"...LOL

“It is what it is”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

Location hidden

#1158 May 9, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah. How could we possibly have reached the moon. It was all based on COMPUTER MODELS. So I guess you are one of those 'conspiracy theorists' that believe it was a Hollywood production?
OF course, you don't really show EVIDENCE of any defects in the current models or the models used to reach the moon.
In fact, you don't say ANYTHING meaningful.
You are an idiot. yes we reached the moon all based on guesses. A computer model is just guesses of the "what if's" it is fed. And the model only knows to analyze what is put it to it by,, wait for it,,, wait for it,,, Yes just guesses put into it by who,,, OH yeah that would be us humans. For if we have never been to the moon, then no facts could have been put into that computer model. just guesses were put in. TADA!!!!!!!!!!

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1159 May 10, 2013
replaytime wrote:
<quoted text>
Computer models are rarely accurate when it comes to nature, weather, storms, volcanoes, hurricanes ect.
The models (the same ones used for climate predictions) and used to give increasing accurate weather predictions.

In 1964 the first operational pictures from satellites became available. But it was not until 1973 that the biggest single increase in accuracy was seen. A new and more powerful computer producing a detailed 10-level numerical model of the Earth's atmosphere doubled the accuracy of the three-day forecast. Information was now arriving regularly from satellites and the forecaster's world was expanding.

...

These huge changes in processing speed and computer power, have continued to improve the accuracy of the weather forecasts. Some measures of accuracy showed an improvement from 79% before 1980 to 86% in 1996.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/weather/hi/about/newsid...

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1160 May 10, 2013
One area where 2012 wins hands down over 1962 is weather forecasting. Michael Fish, who began working at the Met Office six weeks before the Big Freeze struck, says forecasts were of limited use back then.

"A four or five day forecast now is as accurate as a 24 hour forecast was back then. A 10-day forecast was absolutely impossible in those days."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20785406

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1161 May 10, 2013
The Met Office Hadley Centre model is unique among climate models in that it is used with more regional detail to produce the weather forecasts every day

Two critical factors have helped us to improve these models over the years. First, our knowledge of the real world has improved, which allows us to improve the models.

Second, the speed and power of computers has increased dramatically, allowing us to represent more detail in the models.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6320515.s...

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1162 May 10, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
The USA in the last 12 months has seen the fewest number of tornadoes since at least 1954, and the death tolls from the dangerous storms have dropped dramatically since 2011.
"it's just got to be the warming"...LOL
Link?

Here's mine:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severewea...

"Today, nearly all of the United States is reasonably well populated, or at least covered by NOAA's Doppler weather radars. Even if a tornado is not actually observed, modern damage assessments by NWS personnel can discern if a tornado caused the damage, and if so, how strong the tornado may have been. This disparity between tornado records of the past and current records contributes a great deal of uncertainty regarding questions about the long-term behavior or patterns of tornado occurrence. Improved tornado observation practices have led to an increase in the number of reported weaker tornadoes, and in recent years the number of EF-0 and EF-1 tornadoes have become more prevelant in the total number of reported tornadoes. In addition, even today many smaller tornadoes still may go undocumented in places with low populations or inconsistent communication facilities.

With increased national Doppler radar coverage, increasing population, and greater attention to tornado reporting, there has been an increase in the number of tornado reports over the past several decades. This can create a misleading appearance of an increasing trend in tornado frequency. To better understand the true variability and trend in tornado frequency in the U.S., the total number of strong to violent tornadoes (EF3 to EF5 category on the Enhanced Fujita scale) can be analyzed. These are the tornadoes that would have likely been reported even during the decades before Doppler radar use became widespread and practices resulted in increasing tornado reports. The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years."

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1163 May 10, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
There seem to be a lot of people with comments regarding computer models. Most of this information I am very aware of. What seems to be missing is actually addressing the original point. That seems to be an issue of contention not only on this thread but in this forum. I see that you have at least tacitly agreed that computer models are experiments.
No, you misunderstand; computer models are in no way 'experiments'. Computer models produce the results they are programmed to produce and nothing more. We've seen computer models of hobbits, dragons and interstellar space ships, that doesn't validate their existence.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1164 May 10, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No, you misunderstand; computer models are in no way 'experiments'. Computer models produce the results they are programmed to produce and nothing more. We've seen computer models of hobbits, dragons and interstellar space ships, that doesn't validate their existence.
I believe it is you that does not understand. A computer model produces a result, but what it sounds like you are saying is that they are basically programs that produce a predetermined outcome no matter what information is inputted into them. This is not true.

What is an experiment? Isn't an experiment just a model? How about a theory? Do these not have underlying assumptions? If you put garbage into an experiment, you will get garbage results back out. If the underlying assumptions are wrong, then conclusions based on traditional experiments will be wrong.

Your last statement does not any real value to this debate unless you somehow think video games are examples of in silico research. It makes as much sense as claiming alchemy is a real science.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1165 May 11, 2013
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/experiment

The scientific method requires experimental tests:

1. Make observations.
2. Propose a hypothesis.
3. Design and perform an experiment to test the hypothesis.
4. Analyze your data to determine whether to accept or reject the hypothesis.
5. If necessary, propose and test a new hypothesis.

http://chemistry.about.com/od/lecturenotesl3/...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1166 May 11, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
An experiment is: "A test under controlled conditions that is made to demonstrate a known truth, examine the validity of a hypothesis, or determine the efficacy of something previously untried."
Correct. Science CAN use the results of experiment as evidence of a theory. But an experiment is neither necessary nor sufficient to support a theory.

Science can also uses statistical inferences, modeling studies, observations, prior science, though experiments, etc. Experiment is one tool in the toolbox and not a very good one on some subjects such as planetary atmospheres which are just too large to put up on the lab bench or twiddle the inputs.

They can and do use a wide variety of other tools. Experiment is dependent on validity for the assumptions it is based on, the accuracy it is carried out with, and the feasibility of the method along with 'mistakes' which is why experiment in rarely considered 'proof' of anything. See 'cold fusion' or 'Neutrinos exceeding speed of light'..

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1167 May 12, 2013
Climate change mitigation is more than mere observation, it's manipulation and control of climate. I'm not disputing global warming, climate always changes. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been demonstrated.

“Merry Christmas”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Happy New Year

#1168 May 12, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Climate change mitigation is more than mere observation, it's manipulation and control of climate. I'm not disputing global warming, climate always changes. I'm calling climate change mitigation a hoax because it's never been demonstrated.
How do you know climate always changes. You don't accept the methodologies that illustrate those changes. You have stated as much on numerous occassions. What are you basing your acceptance on? Readings of bones and tea leaves?

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 It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 4 min Samuel Patre 168,793
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... (Jun '17) 1 hr superwilly 5,994
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 3 hr Prince of Darkness 94,353
Altruistic Behaviour negates the theory of Evol... 11 hr Mad John Kidd 24
List what words of Jesus (the Creator) you evol... 12 hr Davidjayjordan 44
Impossibility of a Pertpetual Motion Machine me... 13 hr Davidjayjordan 8
Why the Big Bang is ALL WRONG. Wed 15th Dalai Lama 303