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

#1137 May 8, 2013
The All Saints' Flood (Allerheiligenvloed) of 1570

I remember reading about the alarmist saying we need to stop making a fire, it's heating the sky....LOL
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1138 May 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientific institutions use scientific models. They are a tool of science and used to demonstrate a point, not to bolster your sad ideas.
C&P, stop projecting and your insults are childish. Please advise when if ever you have seen me cut and paste...
I have not seen you cut and paste - which was the point of my reference.

My apologies, but I am missing your point... or perhaps you are missing mine?

I said:
NICE CHANGE OF PACE from ad honinem and cut n' paste 'science fact' approach to The Catistrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change Crisis.(that is usually presented by others on these threads).

Concerning "scientific models" used by "scientific institutions", I said:
Every science academy agrees that computer models ARE scientific experiments that are used for the purpose of DISproving (thus far without success) the hypotheses of CACC.. Thus I am in full agreement with your assessment.

Also, I am interested in an example of a "sad idea" that would be " bolstered" by my acknowledging the scientific method.

Thanks in advance for your kind courtesy,
-koolaid
Dont drink the koolaid

Minneapolis, MN

#1139 May 8, 2013
Dear ChristineM,
one other little thing, if I said something that was childish or insulting I am very sorry.
-koolaid
litesong

Monroe, WA

#1140 May 8, 2013
recked car fire wrote:
We “deniers” have now become “debunkers!”
"recked car fire" & toxic topix AGW deniers can't debunk out of a bunk bed without banging their cube heads on a square root. "recked car fire" & toxic topix AGW deniers don't have science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Six toxic topix AGW deniers don't even have hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
litesong

Monroe, WA

#1141 May 8, 2013
recked car fire wrote:
If you ever wondered where all those communist and socialist went when the old Soviet Union collapsed—look no farther than the environmental movement—the Global Warming crowd.
When the Soviet Union collapsed, the satellite imprisoned countries of russia were found to have the most toxic & polluted regions in the world, which the Soviets had previously hidden from the world. No way could communist & socialist ilk worm their way into the the environmental movement, as toxic topix AGW denier, exxon, conservative, business & re-pubic-lick-un bully boy,'recked car fire' asserts. However, old communist & socialist polluters found great sustenance in the toxic topix AGW denier, exxon, conservative, business & re-pubic-lick-un polluters & devastators of america.

Thank you, toxic topix AGW denier, exxon, conservative, business & re-pubic-lick-un 'recked car fire'...... for telling where all the Soviet & socialist polluters are.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#1142 May 8, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
So what was Global Warming all about, anyway? Well, former Czech President Václav Klaus said this:“This ideology preaches earth and nature and under the slogans of their protection – similarly to the old Marxists – wants to replace the free and spontaneous evolution of mankind by a sort of central, now global, planning of the whole world”
Global governance. A one world government. To be more precise: A one-world SOCIALIST government.
Let’s face it: The socialist movement is relentless. If you ever wondered where all those communist and socialist went when the old Soviet Union collapsed—look no farther than the environmental movement—the Global Warming crowd.
So after all this, the argument boils down to some radical political view. It isn't Global Warming, it is Global Socialism.

Gee, I never would have seen that coming.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#1143 May 8, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Computer models can't test drug safety and effect. Not only that: "Although these methods are not proven yet to ‘discover drugs' alone,..."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1...
Global warming fear mongers rely on ignorance. Computer models don't replace real world experiments.
From what I am reading here, Global Warming deniers rely on fear and ignorance and a fair amount of politicizing to boot.

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. 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.

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.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1144 May 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
Do you remember how we were told that so-called “superstorm” Sandy was a result of melting arctic ice? Oh yes, we were slammed over and over again with that bit of unfounded wisdom.
In the first place Sandy was NOT a super storm.“Superstorm” was a term made up by Mainstream Media as a scare tactic. The truth is: SANDY WAS NOT EVEN A HURRICANE WHEN IT CAME ASHORE AT ATLANTIC CITY! To be a hurricane a storm must have sustained winds of at least 74 miles per hour. Sandy was so weak that the storm didn’t have winds high enough to be classified as a hurricane and was therefore only a “tropical cyclone.” Actually, it was LESS than that. It was, in fact, what is known by meteorologists as a “Post Tropical Cyclone.” That’s about as weak as a storm can can get and still be classified as some kind of cyclone.
I know, I know! Yeah, I hate to burst your bubble, but thems the facts, Jack!
Remember, there were two other weather systems that combined with what was left of Sandy to create that godawful weather event now dubbed Superstorm Sandy.
Many of us debunkers warned at the time that the “environuts” would use those combined storms as a means to spread fear of non-existent global warming. They did. Oh, how they used it.
Is that the same mainstream media who hyped the “climate gate” hackers in 3 inch typeface on page one and then were so embarrassed to be shown as foolish they saw fit to publish the results of EIGHT enquires somewhere deep on page 22 or so.

Sandy was a STORM of ferocious proportions causing damage of $75 BILLION in the US alone, the damage reports are available from the insurance companies you moron. 285 people died of a direct result of Sandy (87 in the US), there… does that make you feel all warm and cozy inside. It was classified as more powerful than Katrina, take a look at the data and satellite photos, it formed in the hurricane season in the Caribbean sea, it was an anti clockwise rotating storm with an eye. It’s highest wind speed was measured at 115 MPH which are high enough to be classified as hurricane strength so what do we assume by this? I hate to burst your bubble but your lies have been exposed… again.

And how are you so FOOKING certain that it was not a direct result of climate change, are you a qualified climatologist with magic data? I hate to burst your bubble but you are not.

Whether it was one storm or 100 combined makes no difference the very fact that you say it was a combination of three storms makes it by definition a superstorm. Way to contradict yourself eh? I hate to burst you bubble but you are just pathetic.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1145 May 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>That is your religion, right?
You must be christian to live on a diet of lies, BS and wishful thinking like you do.

Honey you want to make facetious remarks about my belief than fine, but please be man enough to expect a response in kind

FYI, I have no god, I bow down to no deity, I prey to no god book, therefore I have no need to lie. Sorry if you are a christian and are unable to comprehend that but tough.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1146 May 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I have lived long enough to see the same cycles and crazy weather since childhood. Get used to it. Isn't the weather so crazy all the time? I suggest you live closer to the equator where it's more predictable and take your meds.
So you are what, 10, 12?

Ahh you mean predictable like Katrina and Sandy? You really are pathetic if “all move to the equator” is you answer to the climate change problem.

There ya go again, guessing, meds??? You can only come ip with lies and garbage to just5ify your BS, it must be the christian way

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1147 May 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>If I lived in the UK, i'd be more concerned about the religion of peace.
If you lived in the UK you would probably have been flooded out last year

What religion of peace?

Is that the religion of peace where the UK bows down and follows the US into illegal war for no other reason than a lie?

Is that the religion of peace where some bus driver can kidnap and rape three girls for 10 years?

Is that the religion of peace when some nut job can walk into a movie theatre and open fire on the audience?

Is that the religion of peace where some nut job can walk into a school and kill children?

You are coming across as more pathetic every post you make

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1148 May 9, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>The Lynmouth flood of 1952 killed 34 people, more than any other British flood, it was also very destructive and destroyed over 80 buildings in the town of Lynmouth, Devon, United Kingdom.
The North Sea Flood of 1953 caused over 2,000 deaths in the Dutch province of Zeeland and the about 50 in the United Kingdom (the coastlines of East Anglia and Lincolnshire were worst hit) and led to the construction of the Delta Works in Holland and the Thames Barrier in London.
Stop your Global whining, it's the same.
Yes funny how the Lynmouth flood was classified as a storm of tropical intensity way up here so far above the equator eh?

Who is copying and pasting?

I notice that the events you cite are covered by the period of increased climate change caused by human interference. Well done.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#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.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Location hidden

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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.

“The Grim Reaper Is Fictional ”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

But We Will All Meet Him

#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.

“The strength of science is”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

founded in facts.

#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

Toronto, 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.

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) 7 min Subduction Zone 128,021
It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 20 min Chimney1 139,662
Should evolution be taught in high school? (Feb '08) 57 min DanFromSmithville 175,496
An atheistic view on evolution vs. a godly view... 8 hr TurkanaBoy 105
god is not real!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (Jun '06) Thu Ooogah Boogah 13,578
Ten Reason Why Evolution Is a Lie (Jul '09) Nov 26 MikeF 1,902
More Theories to Disprove Creation Nov 26 The Dude 64

Evolution Debate People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE