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.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#25 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
It means that the graph you are referring to represents data collected from one location on earth. Just like the temperature of yesterday in your area does not represent the temperature of the earth yesterday, the ice core data represents the values in antarctica, not the rest of the earh.
Yes, CO2 measured in the same place during the day will be higher than if measured at night. If measured in the summer, CO2 will be higher than if measured in the winter. CO2 values vary depending on the condition at the time of measurement.
In antarctica, it is winter all the time, so CO2 values will be lower when measured in winter. This is important because CO2 values in the ice core are no more indicative of worldwide CO2 values than the temps measured in the ice core represent world temps.
'Well distributed' is a relative value. It is well distributed at low elevations and low latitudes. It is not well distributed at high elevations and high latitudes. Vostok is both high elevation and high latitude. The result is that CO2 at vostok is not the same as CO2 values in Paris.
The ice core provides with a look at how climate has varied over the last 700,000 years. This is incredible information. The ice core shows us a pattern of activity, it does not show the world's temps over the last 700,000 years, it shows antarctica temps over the last 700,000 years.
And ice core data is different for the arctic. Greenland because it is impacted by precession is different from antarctica. Here's a quick look at the comparison. Notice how the antarctic temps lead the arctic temps.
http://mclean.ch/climate/Ice_cores.htm
So, your argument is that the CO2 values from one year taken from ice cores should not be compared to CO2 values from a different year taken from the same ice core because they represent
- the same location
- the same time period
- the same climate

Guess what, if the CO2 at the Equator is increased 1000%, some of it is going to make its way to antarctica within a decade or two and show up in the ice cores.

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#26 Feb 8, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
If as in antarctica, CO2 is collected from an atmosphere that is winter, nighttime 50% of the time, high elevation and high latitude, that will make the collected values lower than CO2 collected from an area that is summer, daytime, low elevation and low latitude. Even though antarctica has been glaciated for about 34 million years now, the rest of the earth is still rather temperate.
Idiot, they are taking a sample from the heart of an ice core. That sample is of the CO2 levels at a particular point in time. Not "a day" or "a night", but a YEAR or even a DECADE.

What season it is, what time of day it is, that's all irrelevant.

They are saying that "550 YEARS ago, the CO2 level at this location in Antarctica was X" and 150 YEARS ago, it was Y" and today it is "Z".
Since the majority of the world does not share the physical attributes of antarctica, then the majority of the world does not share the same CO2 values.
DUH. But if CO2 levels rise ANYWHERE in the world, you will see a rise in CO2 levels EVERYWHERE as the CO2 spreads out.

Let's simplify this argument.

Please answer the following RIDICULOUSLY OBVIOUS questions:

1) Do you believe that adding CO2 to a system increases the amount of CO2 in a system?

2) Do you believe that burning carbon causes the release of CO2 as the oxygen and carbon are joined?

3) Are fossil fuels primarily carbon?

4) If you take one ton of carbon of the ground and convert all of it into CO2, how much carbon has been released as CO2?

5) How many tons of oil, coal and natural gas do we, as a species, release into the air on an annual basis?

6) Does the carbon we release exceed now exceed the amount of carbon we were releasing before we started burning fossil fuels?

7) Do we have more or less land covered with old growth forests now than before we started burning fossil fuels?

8) Does your argument about ice cores do anything to offset these ridiculously obvious points?
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#27 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
The only people I ever see about "cut and paste" science are usually those who wave off explanations given to them as "hand waving". You can't have it both ways. If someone both explains something to you and provides supporting links and quotes then it is incumbent upon you to provide evidence that support your claims.
So what evidence do you have that supports your claims that climate science is in error?
I have given proof. They use terms like prediction, could be, should be, forecast and in my opinion. There is nothing less truthful when those words are incorporated in the discovery. It's like saying that I predict in my opinion one of the teams in a sports team will win the game.
SpaceBlues

United States

#28 Feb 8, 2013
haha What do you expect from a liar called ph'd, who aims to end science here and now.

It claims it responds in kind when it stalks and kills discourse. Posters have left or reduced their participation in this forum due to this disease festering in Topix.

Just look at the records. The best thing is to ignore the ignorant entity residing here 24/7.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#29 Feb 8, 2013
PHD wrote:
<quoted text>I have given proof. They use terms like prediction, could be, should be, forecast and in my opinion. There is nothing less truthful when those words are incorporated in the discovery. It's like saying that I predict in my opinion one of the teams in a sports team will win the game.
No, you haven't.

With a user name like "PHD" you should know how scientific arguments work.
litesong

Everett, WA

#30 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
With a user name like "PHD" you should know how scientific arguments work.
In truth tho, its name is 'phud fetid feces face fiend'. With such a name, it should not know science, should not have studied science, should not know how to do science, should not know how to discover science, or even be able to comment knowledgeably about science.

Whoa! First time, it ever got a 100%.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#31 Feb 8, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
Are there 2 sides to climate change?
Please get informed. The debate isn't about IF the climate is changing. The debate is if humans are the cause.
everythingimportant.org/climategate

Since: Sep 07

Los Angeles, CA

#32 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Please get informed. The debate isn't about IF the climate is changing. The debate is if humans are the cause.
everythingimportant.org/climategate
Actually, it's not even about "if" humans are the cause. It's about how much of a role humans play.

Humans _are_ causing warming. They might be causing 100% or 75% or 50% or 25% or 5%, but human activity IS a factor.

The only real issue left is this:

Conservatives believe Jesus will come back before the climate gets too bad to survive, so why bother doing anything about it.

Liberals think that the Conservatives shouldn't be allowed to have opinions because (see above).

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#33 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Please get informed. The debate isn't about IF the climate is changing. The debate is if humans are the cause.
everythingimportant.org/climategate
There is no real debate about whether man is changing climate. The answer is a resounding yes.

Shoob, your source is just as good as your creatard sources, in other words terrible. Please learn some basic science.
litesong

Everett, WA

#34 Feb 8, 2013
shu fly wrote:
The debate is if humans are the cause.
Not much of a debate when you show a non-scientific copy-cat movie........ shu fly.... don't bother me.......

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#35 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
There is no real debate about whether man is changing climate. The answer is a resounding yes.
Shoob, your source is just as good as your creatard sources, in other words terrible. Please learn some basic science.
Freeman Dyson is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. And you're a Darwinist that believes that just-so-stories is science. So your willful blindness on the commentary of prestigious scientists on climate science shouldn't surprise anyone.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#36 Feb 8, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Actually, it's not even about "if" humans are the cause. It's about how much of a role humans play.
Sorry Nutten,

You're as clueless and as misinformed about real science as Sub Duc.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#37 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Freeman Dyson is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. And you're a Darwinist that believes that just-so-stories is science. So your willful blindness on the commentary of prestigious scientists on climate science shouldn't surprise anyone.
Shoob the Boob, what the frack is a Darwinist? I do not believe any "just-so" stories, that would make me a creationist.

But I don't disagree with Freeman Dyson. So if you agree with Freeman Dyson then you agree with the concept of AGW. I am so glad to hear that.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#38 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
So if you agree with Freeman Dyson then you agree with the concept of AGW.
Quote:

Today's official mythology involves global warming, in a societal mobilization of another kind. The allure of the conventional wisdom has not changed. "Here I am [Freeman Dyson] opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models."
everythingimportant.org/climategate

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#39 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text> Quote:
Today's official mythology involves global warming, in a societal mobilization of another kind. The allure of the conventional wisdom has not changed. "Here I am [Freeman Dyson] opposing the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts and the crowd of deluded citizens that believe the numbers predicted by their models."
everythingimportant.org/climategate
Sorry, you are wrong and you are quote mining. Also any references to your own site win you and automatic loss regardless of why you quote mine.
One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas.
He does not believe it is as bad as the experts say, of course you have to remember that this is well outside of his field of study. He does not think it is a fake or a fraud. So I would not go touting his name too loudly.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#40 Feb 8, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
of course you have to remember that this is well outside of his field of study.
All the sourced documentation and videos presented at everythingimportant.org/climategate proves that you're a willful ignoramus.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#42 Feb 8, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Freeman Dyson is a Professor Emeritus of Physics at the Institute for Advanced Study at Princeton University, a fellow of the American Physical Society, a member of the US National Academy of Sciences, and a fellow of the Royal Society of London. And you're a Darwinist that believes that just-so-stories is science. So your willful blindness on the commentary of prestigious scientists on climate science shouldn't surprise anyone.
If you must use specious arguments from authority, you might at least try to represent your authority honestly.

Dyson accepts anthropogenic climate change, but believes that the dangers are over estimated, and calls into question the precision of climate models but not their general conclusions.

PS Dyson also accepts neo-darwinian evolution but believes that it is being essentially replaced, in humans at least, by cultural evolution.

So zero for two to you on your quote mining efforts, Shubee. Dyson would be disgusted by your twisting.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#43 Feb 9, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
In truth tho, its name is 'phud fetid feces face fiend'. With such a name, it should not know science, should not have studied science, should not know how to do science, should not know how to discover science, or even be able to comment knowledgeably about science.
Whoa! First time, it ever got a 100%.
In addition, you think topix does not know what you publish. Attacks on me will not delete or erase what you are and what you do. You should stop making an ASSumption of your---self before you know the facts. Do contact topix to satisfy your accusations of the reprint BS your posting of what I said. You are a dumbASSumption of your---self again.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#44 Feb 9, 2013
SpaceBlues wrote:
haha What do you expect from a liar called ph'd, who aims to end science here and now.
It claims it responds in kind when it stalks and kills discourse. Posters have left or reduced their participation in this forum due to this disease festering in Topix.
Just look at the records. The best thing is to ignore the ignorant entity residing here 24/7.
Wrong again spaced out spacedoutblue. See you made another ASSumption of your---self. See you really really don't know real science.
PHD

Cibolo, TX

#45 Feb 9, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
No, you haven't.
With a user name like "PHD" you should know how scientific arguments work.
With a name like SUB I can understand why you have issues with science and scientific argument. Try again.

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.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Sea ice cover at both poles at lowest point of ... 34 min TruthToPower 4
News Scientists say they have proved climate change ... (Dec '08) 54 min LYING Bullshyters 8,069
News EPA chief: Trump to undo Obama plan to curb glo... 5 hr CodeTalker 4
News Battery Power Gives Boost to Renewables 16 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 75
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 hr Patriot AKA Bozo 63,567
News EPA chief: Trump to undo Obama plan to curb glo... 20 hr Fuggy 1
Poll What is the most STUPID post made by an AGW'er.... (Sep '09) Sun Life Is Carbon 1,252
More from around the web