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.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1210 May 18, 2013
CO2 from geological sources contain old CO2, just like CO2 from our fossil fuel use. There's no way to distinguish between CO2 from the energy you need to run your home or workplace and the CO2 from volcanoes and wells.

I think LHMF means, you can distinguish between CO2 produced by biological and geological sources by measuring isotope levels.

There's never been an experimental test of global climate forcing from any man made activity.
facts

Oak Hill, WV

#1211 May 18, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I guess if you can't refute the argument, you can always fall back on attacking your opponent.
You mean like you do? Gotcha.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1212 May 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
CO2 from geological sources contain old CO2, just like CO2 from our fossil fuel use.
Three problems with that: no increase in volcanic activity has been observed, and why exactly did unseen volcanic activity increase suddenly just at the time the industrial revolution started, and what happened to the half a trillion tons of carbon man put into the atmosphere?

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/images...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1213 May 18, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
CO2 from geological sources contain old CO2, just like CO2 from our fossil fuel use.
No. Fuel combustion chemically combines 'old carbon' with 'new oxygen' while geological reserves of CO2 have old carbon and old oxygen.(new and old referring to radioactive decay of C14 and O18)which are at fairly steady levels in the atmosphere, generated continuously by high energy cosmic rays.
Brian_G wrote:
There's no way to distinguish between CO2 from the energy you need to run your home or workplace and the CO2 from volcanoes and wells.
Bulloney. Of course, you deny any science that shows you to be a denier.
Brian_G wrote:
I think LHMF means, you can distinguish between CO2 produced by biological and geological sources by measuring isotope levels.
The difference is whether it has spent millions of years buried beyond the reach of cosmic rays or not. Therefore you CAN distinguish between buried carbon (fuels) burned with atmospheric oxygen and buried CO2.
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of global climate forcing from any man made activity.
I suppose this is just your 'mantra' since it makes no sense and you have been rebutted on it hundreds of times.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#1214 May 18, 2013
warmed sigh cyst wrote:
We need more money to support our research, so for the time being we will throw out "facts" and data we make up to scare the populace into giving us money to live on. High on the hog too.
Typical toxic topix AGW denier. But to be really repugnant, you'll have make noises like 'drink the kkk-aid', & dirtling. You would need to revamp your entire approach tho, if you want the vaunted rank (& steenk) of bob burns.
litesong

Mountlake Terrace, WA

#1215 May 18, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
You (lyin' brian) are bordering on total gibberish.
I wish gibberish is what 'lyin' brian' spoke. However, I understood 'lyin' brian's slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pigisms, 4 alleged threats & one proud threat, all too well. Proudly,'lyin' brian' also said he made 3 other threats, that I never read.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1216 May 18, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
I wish gibberish is... Proudly,'lyin' brian' also said he made 3 other threats, that I never read.
Reminds me of Clint Eastwood talking to the chair.... I'm sure it made total sense to him too.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#1217 May 18, 2013
GLOBAL WARMING IN THE BIBLE

Scientists and other highly educated people generally discount the Bible, treating it as if it were a book of fables. Soon, however, they will realize to their great horror that God means exactly what He tells us in the Bible.

The seven last plagues occur during the last year of earth’s history. Global warming occurs during the fourth plague as described in Revelation 16:8,9 in the King James Version of the Bible:“And the fourth angel poured out his vial upon the sun; and power was given unto him to scorch men with fire. And men were scorched with great heat, and blasphemed the name of God, which hath power over these plagues: and they repented not to give him glory.”

The sun at this time greatly increases its output, and there is nothing the scientists or bureaucrats can do about it.

It will happen just as surely as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, and just as surely nobody will be able to do anything about it but suffer the consequences.

NASA’S CHIEF SCIENTIST IS CONFUSED
ABOUT THE OZONE HOLE
“The thinning of the ozone layer over other parts of the earth is accelerating, and we don’t understand why, and we don’t know how fast. We don’t know what factors control the movement of ozone in the stratosphere. We don’t know what part of the thinning is due to the natural dynamics of the atmosphere and what part is due to the destruction of ozone by manmade chemicals. We don’t know much of anything .... We’ve confused computer models of the atmosphere with the real thing. We’re making huge extrapolations based on nothing but models, and models are often wrong.”
Dr. James Anderson, NASA's chief scientist
The New York Times Magazine, March 13, 1994

GREENHOUSE GASSES
Many claim that global warming is occurring because of greenhouse gasses such as carbon dioxide. What is the most effective greenhouse gas? What gas is most effective in trapping heat near the earth’s surface? It is water vapor. Water vapor is many times more effective in trapping heat near the earth’s surface than any other gas.

GLOBAL COOLING?
According to measurements taken at Tuvalu, Nauru, and the Solomon Islands, sea levels have fallen by about 2.5 inches over the last ten years. These islands were supposed to be swamped by now because of the melting polar ice caps. Obviously it isn’t happening.— Reference: http://www.iceagenow.com/Pacific_Ocean_sea_le...

Refer to our book Earth’s Final hours for complete details of the seven last plagues and other events associated with the end of time as we know it.
HOW TO OBTAIN THIS BOOK
RETURN TO PACIFIC INSTITUTE’S HOME PAGE

http://www.pacinst.com/warming.htm
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#1218 May 18, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
GLOBAL WARMING IN THE BIBLE
Scientists and other highly educated people generally discount the Bible, treating it as if it were a book of fables. Soon, however, they will realize to their great horror that God means exactly what He tells us in the Bible.
Then is the Earth a flat square circle which rests on foundations fixed and unmoving on pillars while hanging from nothing at the center of a geocentric universe that revolves around it like what "God" tells us in the Bible?

Or does Earth revolve around the sun like the scientists say it does?

Is the Word of God LITERALLY the Word of God? Or does it mean whatever you want it to mean even though a literal translation does not mean what you say it means?

In short, why are you fundies always so dishonest?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1219 May 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Three problems with that: no increase in volcanic activity has been observed, and why exactly did unseen volcanic activity increase suddenly just at the time the industrial revolution started, and what happened to the half a trillion tons of carbon man put into the atmosphere?[]
The problem is, there's never been an experiment to test man made CO2 on climate. Coincidence isn't causality.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1220 May 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
No. Fuel combustion chemically combines 'old carbon' with 'new oxygen' while geological reserves of CO2 have old carbon and old oxygen.(new and old referring to radioactive decay of C14 and O18)which are at fairly steady levels in the atmosphere, generated continuously by high energy cosmic rays.

Bulloney. Of course, you deny any science that shows you to be a denier.

The difference is whether it has spent millions of years buried beyond the reach of cosmic rays or not. Therefore you CAN distinguish between buried carbon (fuels) burned with atmospheric oxygen and buried CO2.

I suppose this is just your 'mantra' since it makes no sense and you have been rebutted on it hundreds of times.
Oxygen 18 is a stable isotope, it doesn't decay like Carbon 14. Oxygen 15 decays, but it's decay rate is so fast it can't be used for geological measurements.

There's no way to tell if CO2 from geological sources is different from CO2 from burning fossil fuel. Climate change mitigation is based on pseudoscience and it's a hoax.
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1221 May 19, 2013
http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembook/images...

shows carbon emissions in millions of tons .. into our atmosphere.

From the depths of the planet into our breathing air while depleting the air's oxygen.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1222 May 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>The problem is, there's never been an experiment to test man made CO2 on climate. Coincidence isn't causality.
We increased CO2 in the atmosphere, we observed the effect on the CO2 spectrum.

The experiment's done and the result is in.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1223 May 19, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
<quoted text>
I bike as my main transportation. I use LED bulbs. It isn't fanatical but it is responsible. Unlike those who do NOTHING and then whine (i.e you). NOBODY says we have to return to the caves or that the wealthy have to give up their 'perks'.
My personal commitment to this goal is to emulate our heroes in the battle against global warming.

First:
The Nobel prize laureate, Al Gore.

I have traded in my Sunfish sailboat for an exact reproduction of the Vice President's 100 foot twin inboard diesel powered house boat, called "Bio Solar One".
In tribute to Mr. Gore, I have christened my new boat the BS Too.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1224 May 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Oxygen 18 is a stable isotope, it doesn't decay like Carbon 14. Oxygen 15 decays, but it's decay rate is so fast it can't be used for geological measurements.
There's no way to tell if CO2 from geological sources is different from CO2 from burning fossil fuel. Climate change mitigation is based on pseudoscience and it's a hoax.
I am corrected about the decay of O18 but the rest of your claims are not valid. O16 to O18 are the stable forms. The rest are unstable. http://www.periodictable.com/Isotopes/008.18/...

The isotopic analysis is actually a bit more complicated that I had originally understood. Well, that is what I get for not going to the source. So here IS one of the sources. Read it. It explains how we differentiate between the oxygen from geological stores and from open combustion.
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/11/1473/2011/a...
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1225 May 19, 2013
And the O18/O16 abundance in the atmophere HAS changed over millions of years, but the mechanism isn't decay. Nevertheless, it provides evidence of when the oxygen was incorporated into the CO2.

See
http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/global_wa... Figure 1.4

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1226 May 19, 2013
LHMF's citations are inconclusive at best and more accurately, irrelevant. They are about different combustion sources, not geological sources. There's no way to differentiate between man made CO2 from fossil fuel and natural out gassing from volcanoes and wells.

A correction to my post above, oxygen isotopes other than O18 and O16 are so unstable, they are useless to measure age.

Also note, Fair Game believes our fossil fuel use is an experiment; most alarmists don't understand science and I offer his post as proof:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...
They think our life is an experiment but we know better.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1227 May 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
LHMF's citations are inconclusive at best and more accurately, irrelevant. They are about different combustion sources, not geological sources. There's no way to differentiate between man made CO2 from fossil fuel and natural out gassing from volcanoes and wells.
A correction to my post above, oxygen isotopes other than O18 and O16 are so unstable, they are useless to measure age.
Also note, Fair Game believes our fossil fuel use is an experiment; most alarmists don't understand science and I offer his post as proof:
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...
They think our life is an experiment but we know better.
OH...but you're incorrect.

As we have indicated before, there **IS** an identifiable difference between 'natural' and man-made CO2.

"As you can see <by the evidence contained in the article at the link below>, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion. Each one of these lines of evidence is very conclusive on its own, and when all put together, it's abundantly clear that the science is settled on this issue."

http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-...

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#1228 May 19, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
OH...but you're incorrect.
As we have indicated before, there **IS** an identifiable difference between 'natural' and man-made CO2.
"As you can see <by the evidence contained in the article at the link below>, there are many lines of evidence showing that the increase in atmospheric CO2 is due to human fossil fuel combustion. Each one of these lines of evidence is very conclusive on its own, and when all put together, it's abundantly clear that the science is settled on this issue."
http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-increase-...
Thanks for the link Kong. As usual, you provide real science to wash out the twisted politics that are so prevelant on this thread.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1229 May 20, 2013
There's no difference between fossil carbon from man made fossil fuel use and fossil carbon from geological activity.

You folks are missing the boat, when you keep thinking about volcanoes. The process of lighter elements floating up through the Earth's core doesn't depend on volcanic activity. Wells, geysers and seepage account for the majority.

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
can anyone explain to me why humans are the onl... (Mar '08) 1 hr Richardfs 1,141
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Richardfs 52,022
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 2 hr Richardfs 157,574
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr It aint necessari... 24,828
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 12 hr Regolith Based Li... 218,797
Can the universe be God's brain? (Jun '07) Thu scientia potentia... 98
News Darwin's Doubt: Giving a Case for Intelligent D... Thu scientia potentia... 1
More from around the web