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.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1581 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I make my arguments about the issue, not ad hominem irrationality like Chris's post above.
.
<quoted text>Chris doesn't understand the issue; climate change mitigation has never been experimentally tested. Not, there's never been any experiment on anything, the issue is restricting, taxing, capping CO2 emissions or increasing CO2 sinks, not computer models.
.
<quoted text>Logic states a negative can't be proven; I can't prove you don't have a unicorn in your garage either.
.
<quoted text>Experiments aren't fuel; coal, oil and gas are fuels. The article above cites no experimental tests of climate change mitigation.
.
<quoted text>An article called: "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter". Not only don't they matter to climate, there's never been a test of man made greenhouse gas emissions that's caused a change in the Earth's atmosphere; that is, you can't emit a gigaton of CO2 in a lab in Chicago and measure that change in Mauna Loa.
.
<quoted text>^^^This is about coral, not climate. Also, do a page search for the word "experiment".
Nope, you make your arguments based on ignorance and profit

Chris does understand the issue and climate change mitigation experiments are a red herring. A series of links prove you wrong but you are welcome to lie all you want if that’s what lines your pockets

The point is that I have provided multiple sources of evidence and you have not, logically I win

No because they are irrelevant and not what you stated anyway. What you actually said was “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” And that report was one of several that prove you wrong.

The article was called "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter" as you rightly said however you appear to misunderstand (or ignore) the first two words “Climate myths”

However that is not what you asked for, I provided evidence that you lied when you said “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” By providing links to SEVERAL such experiments.

This is about Ocean acidification as well as several other related topics but good of you to omit the first report, that just shows how you are grasping at straws and willing to ignore facts.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1582 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
.
<quoted text>Same as before.
.
<quoted text>^^^No experiment here; Chris is posting spam, not an experimental record of climate change mitigation or any experiment that shows man can change global climate.
.
<quoted text>^^^This is an experiment on plant growth, not climate. Agricultural technology has been experimentally tested for thousands of years but there's been no experiments on climate change mitigation technology.
.
<quoted text>^^^Here we agree, but again an experiment on plants isn't an experiment on climate.
.
<quoted text>^^^Not a climate change mitigation experiment either.
.
<quoted text>^^^Not about climate, about crops. Please try to focus.
.
<quoted text>A google search isn't the same as an experimental test either. Please cite one experiment that compels you to believe in man made catastrophic climate change and describe how that experiment proves we must restrict or tax CO2 emissions.
Experiments and reports on experiments, for the latter all you need to do is follow the citation links, or article detail links to find the scientific authority as source for the report.

Plant growth under strictly controlled climatic conditions measuring the effects CO2 levels on plant growth as you said did not exist.

As above

How many times, climate change mitigation is an irrelevant red herring, you cannot experiment on the earth’s biosphere without either damaging it (as is happening) or improving it.

About crops reaction to increased CO2, AS YOU CLAIMED DID NOT EXIST

A google scholar search will provide many citations to experiments that show you to be a liar.

Why are you changing the gopalposts, have you decided your claim that “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” has been completely debunked?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1583 Oct 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Nope, you make your arguments based on ignorance and profit
Chris does understand the issue and climate change mitigation experiments are a red herring. A series of links prove you wrong but you are welcome to lie all you want if that’s what lines your pockets
The point is that I have provided multiple sources of evidence and you have not, logically I win
No because they are irrelevant and not what you stated anyway. What you actually said was “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” And that report was one of several that prove you wrong.
The article was called "Climate myths: Human CO2 emissions are too tiny to matter" as you rightly said however you appear to misunderstand (or ignore) the first two words “Climate myths”
However that is not what you asked for, I provided evidence that you lied when you said “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” By providing links to SEVERAL such experiments.
This is about Ocean acidification as well as several other related topics but good of you to omit the first report, that just shows how you are grasping at straws and willing to ignore facts.
So, Chris believes this experiment on CO2 and plants show what Mother Nature likes or dislikes?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1584 Oct 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Experiments and reports on experiments, for the latter all you need to do is follow the citation links, or article detail links to find the scientific authority as source for the report.
Plant growth under strictly controlled climatic conditions measuring the effects CO2 levels on plant growth as you said did not exist.
As above
How many times, climate change mitigation is an irrelevant red herring, you cannot experiment on the earth’s biosphere without either damaging it (as is happening) or improving it.
About crops reaction to increased CO2, AS YOU CLAIMED DID NOT EXIST
A google scholar search will provide many citations to experiments that show you to be a liar.
Why are you changing the gopalposts, have you decided your claim that “Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it. There's no experimental evidence otherwise.” has been completely debunked?
Climate change mitigation isn't "an irrelevant red herring", my claim "Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it" is. Nobody knows what Mother Nature thinks.

There have been many experiments on crops and increased CO2 but none on climate and man made CO2. The only area where we differ is climate change mitigation.

Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience and the experimental record proves it.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1585 Oct 25, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>So, Chris believes this experiment on CO2 and plants show what Mother Nature likes or dislikes?
Emm, experiments, yes and you don’t?
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate change mitigation isn't "an irrelevant red herring", my claim "Don't fear, Mother Nature likes it" is. Nobody knows what Mother Nature thinks.
There have been many experiments on crops and increased CO2 but none on climate and man made CO2. The only area where we differ is climate change mitigation.
Climate change mitigation is a hoax and man made catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience and the experimental record proves it.
That my dear little goalpost mover is NOT WHAT YOU SAID, I quoted twice EXACTLY what you said, there can be no argument, it is wrotten in black on white and to prove it I will give you the post number and link in which you stated it.

#1564
http://www.topix.com/forum/news/evolution/TVP...

But of course you are free to lie as much as you want in the face of the physical evidence. Entirely your choice but obviously you have no care for any credibility you one believed that you had.

Is there a difference between natural CO2 and man made CO2? Oh that’s brilliant deduction, you need to get onto the scientific comunity across the world and let them know, hey you could be up for a Nobel Prize for such insight.

Climate change mitigation is a BS red herring dreamed up by co2 addicts and profiteers. They have NEVER ONCE specified how such experiment can take place on a worldwide atmospheric scale which is what you are asking. But complain and whinge bitterly when no such data is available.

Yes now you admit it is a hoax and you ask for experimental data knowing that such data cannot ever be obtained. As I said, a red herring.

And man made climate change is now agreed by more than 97% of scientist in the field, even the staunch deniers are on the move.

What’s it feel like to be left standing alone?

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1586 Oct 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, I was simply asking, surely you must have noticed the question mark? Perhaps not… Just interest really, I would not like to draw specious conclusions (as you do) based on the obnoxious and abusive content of your posts, maybe it’s not narcotics that boost you intelligence to that of sewer rat, perhaps it’s just ignorance or worse still deliberate ignorance.
<quoted text>
My dear child, the evidence is in EVERY SINGLE POST you address to me in which you attempt to verbally abuse me, my intelligence and my gender. The post listed quoted above is a prime example. You have juts provided the evidence yourself, well done…
Because you are unable to see this is you own problem, perhaps a derivative of the dunning kruger effect – look it up.
quite familiar with dunning kruger, son.
It's usually thrown around by leftist like yourself when they've been disarmed or shown incapable of proving their point!
Funny thing is.....you're a prime example of it while pretending to be intellectually superior then referencing it to diminish another poster.
Kind of pot/kettle hypocrisy at its worst.
You feel me?

“I'm Hillary's Deplorable”

Level 10

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1587 Oct 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
...Climate change mitigation is a BS red herring dreamed up by co2 addicts and profiteers. They have NEVER ONCE specified how such experiment can take place on a worldwide atmospheric scale which is what you are asking. But complain and whinge bitterly when no such data is available....And man made climate change is now agreed by more than 97% of scientist in the field, even the staunch deniers are on the move. What’s it feel like to be left standing alone?
Why do you believe a climate change mitigation is impossible? Do you agree with me, it's a hoax? Is that why you think it's impossible to find an experiment that either tests manmande catastrophic climate change theory or climate change mitigation; because it's impossible to change the entire global climate?

Consensus doesn't prove scientific theories, experimental tests do that. Consensus is for beauty pageants, not science.

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1588 Oct 26, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>quite familiar with dunning kruger, son.
It's usually thrown around by leftist like yourself when they've been disarmed or shown incapable of proving their point!
Funny thing is.....you're a prime example of it while pretending to be intellectually superior then referencing it to diminish another poster.
Kind of pot/kettle hypocrisy at its worst.
You feel me?
Quite familiar – usually known? Go figure… you don’t even know how stupid you are

Point proven several times and you still don’t recognize you own childish BS

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1589 Oct 26, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Why do you believe a climate change mitigation is impossible? Do you agree with me, it's a hoax? Is that why you think it's impossible to find an experiment that either tests manmande catastrophic climate change theory or climate change mitigation; because it's impossible to change the entire global climate?
Consensus doesn't prove scientific theories, experimental tests do that. Consensus is for beauty pageants, not science.
I do not believe climate change mitigation is impossible, however climate change mitigation experiments are impossible. And it does not matter how you attempt to twist and distort and fook with the words I say by vomiting your own ignorance over them.

Certainly under the conditions that you would accept, climate change mitigation experiments are impossible. As you have already shown, you consider small scale (not the complete biosphere) experiments to be beneath your backhanders and corruption. Science is somewhat more ethical than carrying out complete biosphere experiments since Thomas Midgely Jnr first put lead in petrol which is still killing hundreds of thousands of people a year. Perhaps you also invested in that?

Climate change, manmade or otherwise is a given, it is proven. Just because you are making so much money out of CO2 abuse does not mean that we are all as ignorant as you.

Consensus of scientific theories when made by scientists who have peer reviewed the experiments that you ignore and deny even took place proves considerably more than you profiteering at the expense of human life. You may of course attempt to ridicule the sciences but all that means is that you have nothing substantial to offer the argument.
litesong

Everett, WA

#1590 Oct 26, 2013
middleofdownwronggully wrote:
......quite familiar with dunning kruger, My Superior.
.....thrown around by.......
...... AGW supporters of climate scientists, when specifying the lack of education, training & intelligence of AGW deniers, who vastly & often have no science or mathematics degrees or even science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Dunning-Kruger truly applies to those AGW deniers who HAVE no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, who believe they are more intelligent than climate scientists with 10-12+ years more science, mathematics & training.

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1591 Oct 28, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Quite familiar – usually known? Go figure… you don’t even know how stupid you are
Point proven several times and you still don’t recognize you own childish BS
and yet someone so "bright" as yourself can't help but play along.

it's like the tail wagging the dog, i suppose, smarty pants!

come on......flop again...smart little fishy.

LOL

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1592 Oct 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
...... AGW supporters of climate scientists, when specifying the lack of education, training & intelligence of AGW deniers, who vastly & often have no science or mathematics degrees or even science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Dunning-Kruger truly applies to those AGW deniers who HAVE no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, who believe they are more intelligent than climate scientists with 10-12+ years more science, mathematics & training.
nothing to see here, people. move along......it's just more repetitive rants from the topix version of a middle school 'otis'.

hurry along.....

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1593 Oct 28, 2013
it's really funny to read welfare state dependents proclaim their intellectual superiority!!

bwaaahahahahahaa
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

#1594 Oct 28, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
...... AGW supporters of climate scientists, when specifying the lack of education, training & intelligence of AGW deniers, who vastly & often have no science or mathematics degrees or even science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc in their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Dunning-Kruger truly applies to those AGW deniers who HAVE no hi skule DEE-plooomaas, who believe they are more intelligent than climate scientists with 10-12+ years more science, mathematics & training.
Again.. you really put their ridiculous stance into proper context.

Bwahahahahaha

“BET DAP”

Level 4

Since: Feb 09

GOOM BOWN

#1595 Oct 28, 2013
the band of idiots have their own cheering section.

bwaaahaaaahaaa

psssst....hey, mullet, got Nobel?

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1596 Oct 29, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
<quoted text>and yet someone so "bright" as yourself can't help but play along.
it's like the tail wagging the dog, i suppose, smarty pants!
come on......flop again...smart little fishy.
LOL
I am here for the fun, and I am enjoying myself by highlighting your stupidity and deliberate (or otherwise) ignorance. You don’t like that, then tough, you know what you can do… Perhaps you don’t, perhaps you are totally unaware of the alternatives open to you as is so often the case when one is so badly suffering the dunning kruger effect

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1597 Oct 29, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
it's really funny to read welfare state dependents proclaim their intellectual superiority!!
bwaaahahahahahaa
Speaking from experience are you? LOL, nope you probably would not understand that either

“When you treat people as they ”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1598 Oct 29, 2013
ritedownthemiddle wrote:
the band of idiots have their own cheering section.
bwaaahaaaahaaa
psssst....hey, mullet, got Nobel?
Have you been smoking that whacky backy again?

You do seem to have a serious dose of the giggles

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1599 Oct 29, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
I am here for the fun, and I am enjoying myself by highlighting your stupidity and deliberate (or otherwise) ignorance. You don’t like that, then tough, you know what you can do… Perhaps you don’t, perhaps you are totally unaware of the alternatives open to you as is so often the case when one is so badly suffering the dunning kruger effect
So you admit you are on here to pick at people, pass time, make fun of people because your life is boring. Interesting.

“Ask Randy From Ballwin”

Level 5

Since: Mar 13

He Is A Sock Know It All

#1600 Oct 29, 2013
Pathetic but interesting.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 20 min replaytime 210,011
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 2 hr Thinking 20,305
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 8 hr It aint necessari... 152,270
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) Wed ChristineM 45,559
America evolving into lockdown on purpose Sep 25 Dogen 68
New law to further hatred towards police Sep 24 One way or another 4
Hillary, a taco stand on every corner Sep 24 One way or another 4
More from around the web