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.

Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1230 May 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
Please explain why this geological activity suddenly happened at the time the industrial started when it hadn't for the previous 800000 years.
imagine2011

Southaven, MS

#1231 May 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Please explain why this geological activity suddenly happened at the time the industrial started when it hadn't for the previous 800000 years.
I notice you got no answer.

I'd like to know also.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1232 May 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>Thanks for the link Kong. As usual, you provide real science to wash out the twisted politics that are so prevelant on this thread.
Muchos gracias, Dan.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1233 May 20, 2013
imagine2011 wrote:
<quoted text>
I notice you got no answer.
I'd like to know also.
Irony is wasted on Americans.

Of course geological activity didn't just start to increase CO2 levels right at the same time the industrial revolution happened where they'd been stable for 800,000 years.

We caused the increase by putting half a trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, mostly from fossil fuels.

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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1234 May 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Please explain why this geological activity suddenly happened at the time the industrial started when it hadn't for the previous 800000 years.
Geological activity constantly releases CO2. Coincidence isn't causality.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1235 May 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Geological activity constantly releases CO2. Coincidence isn't causality.
Correct.

So it doesn't explain the huge and unprecedented rise of the 20th and 21st century.

I should give up that argument if I were you: it's simply dumb.
litesong

Everett, WA

#1236 May 21, 2013
[QUOTE who="lyin' brian"]The problem is, there's never been......[/QUOTE]

The problems of 'lyin' brian' is he has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, has no science & mathematics degrees, has made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

“Dinosaurs survived the flood!”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

Jesus probably rode dinosaurs!

#1237 May 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
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.
According to what Kong posted you are WRONG. You might consider reading the information provided through that link.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1238 May 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
The problems of 'lyin' brian' is he has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, has no science & mathematics degrees, has made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.
I'll say this for you, son, you don't discriminate!

You'll post the same repetitious, childish, idiotic, cut and paste lunacy on any thread and to anyone in which you lack the intelligence and maturity to debate and substantiate your claims against. Which, by the way, would be most anywhere against about anyone who has a pulse.
litesong

Everett, WA

#1239 May 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
The problems of 'lyin' brian' is he has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, has no science & mathematics degrees, has made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.
////////
'middleofthedownwronggully' gushed:
you lack the intelligence and maturity to ......substantiate your claims......
////////
litesong wrote:
Everyone who has been here for over 5 years, knows I tell the truth about 'lyin' brian', much of which 'lyin' brian' readily admits....... or used to admit.

You have also read my posts of the worst savages of bob burns. But all comments you made considered I was the perp.

'lyin' brian' doesn't has no science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa, has no science & mathematics degrees, has made errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, 73 million TIMES, & 2.5+ trillion TIMES, is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

You keep defending 'lyin' brian', meaning you are a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig & 4-time alleged & 4-time proud threatener.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1240 May 22, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
According to what Kong posted you are WRONG. You might consider reading the information provided through that link.
Kong is wrong, fossil carbon is old no matter if it comes from fossil fuel or geological activity. I read the link, it talks about the difference between fossil carbon and CO2 from biomass.

Without an experiment to test climate change mitigation or man made global climate change, climate alarmism and climate change mitigation advocacy is a hoax.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1241 May 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Kong is wrong, fossil carbon is old no matter if it comes from fossil fuel or geological activity. I read the link, it talks about the difference between fossil carbon and CO2 from biomass.
Please tell us how geological activity explains this graph:

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

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1242 May 24, 2013
Fair Game's graph shows total CO2 concentration, not man made CO2 alone. Perhaps the Earth is warming so as the oceans warm, CO2 is forced out of solution into the air, like a can of soda pop going flat as it warms.

Oceans contain far more CO2 than the air. Historically CO2 increase follows warming.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1243 May 24, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
Fair Game's graph shows total CO2 concentration, not man made CO2 alone. Perhaps the Earth is warming so as the oceans warm, CO2 is forced out of solution into the air, like a can of soda pop going flat as it warms.
Oceans contain far more CO2 than the air. Historically CO2 increase follows warming.
So you're abandoning the idea that it's geological and suggesting that it came out of the oceans?

That idea is of course contradicted by evidence that the oceans are in fact absorbing CO2, and of course the isotope ratio of CO2 in the ocean *is* different.
An international team of scientists found that oceans have taken in about 118 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide from human activities between 1800 and 1994, accounting for nearly a third of their long-term carrying capacity.

The 15-year study, conducted and analyzed with the help of several researchers around the world, looked at nearly 72,000 samples taken in the Atlantic, Pacific and Indian oceans.
http://www.planetark.com/dailynewsstory.cfm/n...
The amount of carbon dioxide being absorbed by the world's oceans has reduced, scientists have said.

University of East Anglia researchers gauged CO2 absorption through more than 90,000 measurements from merchant ships equipped with automatic instruments.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7053903.st...
Scientists have issued a new warning about climate change after discovering a sudden and dramatic collapse in the amount of carbon emissions absorbed by the Sea of Japan.

The shift has alarmed experts, who blame global warming.

Working with Pavel Tishchenko of the Russian Pacific Oceanological Institute in Vladivostok, Lee and his colleague Geun-Ha Park used a cruise on the Professor Gagarinskiy, a Russian research vessel, last May to take seawater samples from 24 sites across the Sea of Japan.

They compared the dissolved CO2 in the seawater with similar samples collected in 1992 and 1999. The results showed the amount of CO2 absorbed during 1999 to 2007 was half the level recorded from 1992 to 1999.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/ja...
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1244 May 24, 2013
A troll wants to cause a commotion and get people ranting and raving because they want their presence on a forum or comments thread to be the main focus. They want the spotlight and attention on them.

To do this they will disrupt the flow of conversation, provoke fellow commenters and/or post abusive statements to inflame a response.

Often they will play devils advocate, vigorously defending statements or positions they know to be illogical or untrue in an attempt to get people riled up.

http://www.insidersedge.co.uk/lifestyletips/h...

Brian_G, vigorously defending statements or positions he knows to be illogical or untrue.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1245 May 25, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
So you're abandoning the idea that it's geological and suggesting that it came out of the oceans? That idea is of course contradicted by evidence that the oceans are in fact absorbing CO2, and of course the isotope ratio of CO2 in the ocean *is* different.[/URL deleted]
There can't be more than one reason for changes in atmospheric CO2? There are more than 7 billion people on Earth and we all emit carbon dioxide, not to mention natural sources.

The oceans absorb and emit CO2, mostly dependent on temperature.
Level 1

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#1246 May 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There can't be more than one reason for changes in atmospheric CO2? There are more than 7 billion people on Earth and we all emit carbon dioxide, not to mention natural sources.
The oceans absorb and emit CO2, mostly dependent on temperature.
The observations say you are wrong.

You repeat the claim: that makes you a liar.

You repeat the claim over and over: that makes you a troll.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1247 May 25, 2013
Cook's 97% consensus study falsely classifies the scientists' papers according to the scientists that published them.
LessHypeMoreFact

Etobicoke, Canada

#1248 May 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There can't be more than one reason for changes in atmospheric CO2?
Of course there can be. Volcanic activity for example is responsible for many episodes of CO2 change in the past. Methane releases from 'methane clathrates' have done it too. However, the FACTS are that THIS change is from fossil fuels and none of the other mechanisms have changed their contributions.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There are more than 7 billion people on Earth and we all emit carbon dioxide..
Yes, we do, but our breath is a spit in the bucket compared to the 6 or 8 tons we emit from energy production.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text> not to mention natural sources.
The CO2 levels in the atmosphere are a DYNAMIC BALANCE between sources of all types and sequestration 'sinks'. Just as, when you increase the flow to a bathtub with a restricted outflow, the level of water increases, so too the level in the atmosphere will increase when you turn up the tap on industrial emissions of 30 BILLION tons of CO2. The net effect of 'natural sources and sinks is currently negative (CO2 going into the oceans) which is leading to the problem of acidification.
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>
The oceans absorb and emit CO2, mostly dependent on temperature.
Untrue. The driving forces of ocean source or sink is twofold. One is temperature, but the OTHER is the level of CO2 in the atmsophere (partial pressure). The partial pressure increase from industrial emissions overpowers the smaller force of temperature increase. We KNOW this because the oceans are acidifying, and we can also measure CO2 buffering directly.

“I Luv Carbon Dioxide”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1249 May 25, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
The observations say you are wrong. You repeat the claim: that makes you a liar. You repeat the claim over and over: that makes you a troll.
I'm just using Charles's law:

The volume of a given mass of an ideal gas is directly proportional to its temperature on the absolute temperature scale (in Kelvins) if pressure and the amount of gas remain constant; that is, the volume of the gas increases or decreases by the same factor as its temperature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles%27s_law

As the oceans warm, CO2 expands out of the oceans into the atmosphere. Historically, increased atmospheric CO2 follows warming.

BTW, Fair Game's use of ad hominem argument shows how little respect he has for logic or human dignity.

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 "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min renee 31,407
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 9 min Don Barros Serrano 197,573
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 18 min Don Barros Serrano 151,046
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 19 min Uncle Sam 13,362
This is how christians fumble up the evolution ... 11 hr zxx838557 1
Rome Viharo debunks evolution 23 hr Paul Porter1 2
Evolution in action May 27 MIDutch 1
More from around the web