Skull Valley lawmaker wants both sides of climate change taught to students

Feb 5, 2013 | Posted by: roboblogger | Full story: Verde Independent

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.

Comments
41 - 60 of 1,645 Comments Last updated Wednesday Jul 23

Since: Mar 12

Dubai, UAE

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#42
Feb 8, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#43
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#44
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

3

2

2

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

Overton, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#45
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#46
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

PHD wrote:
<quoted text>With a name like SUB I can understand why you have issues with science and scientific argument. Try again.
Nice try idiot. All you have demonstrated in this post that you know nothing of science.

Here are some serious questions, do you know what the Greenhouse effect is? Do you know when it was discovered? Did you know that to certain colors of light that CO2 is opaque?

In fact here is a very short video that demonstrates how CO2 traps heat:
SpaceBlues

Houston, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#47
Feb 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Nice try idiot. All you have demonstrated in this post that you know nothing of science.
Here are some serious questions, do you know what the Greenhouse effect is? Do you know when it was discovered? Did you know that to certain colors of light that CO2 is opaque?
In fact here is a very short video that demonstrates how CO2 traps heat: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =SeYfl45X1woXX
Excellent response.

Very good vid.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#48
Feb 9, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
If you must use specious arguments from authority, you might at least try to represent your authority honestly.
Which statements by him or video lecture of his which is displayed at everythingimportant.org/climategate do you not believe?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#49
Feb 9, 2013
 
Chimney1 wrote:
PS Dyson also accepts neo-darwinian evolution
Certainly he does but Dyson also respects the divine mind behind quantum mechanics. everythingimportant.org/naturalism

There's obviously a difference between a thinking mind and nonthinking fools that mindless whine about quotations that reveal the ignorant errors of "the holy brotherhood ... and the crowd of deluded citizens" like Sub Duc.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#50
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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.
No, ice core data is good data for the location it was collected from.

My statement is not about how ice core data compares with itself, it is about how ice core data compares with data collected from other places.

Here's a graph of collected CO2 data from plant stomata from three locations as compared to CO2 data from the Law Dome ice core. Notice how there is a difference in the three data sets. Most notably the stomata values were collected from the NH and show more variability than the SH ice core data. The reason for the difference is the earth's precession.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm135...
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#51
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
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".?
First I am not an idiot. You want to call me names, you'll be yelling at an empty space, I haven't been in fourth grade in decades and have no desire to participate in that level of discourse.

Yes, it makes a difference where a proxy study collects it's data. Since every location on earth has a different set of environmental conditions, then each study is impacted by those specific conditions. To understand any proxy study requires an understanding of the conditions under which the data was collected.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#52
Feb 9, 2013
 
Two automatic fails for Shubee, hmm, I wonder if we can get him in trouble for spamming the site. I do believe that might be against the rules here.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#53
Feb 9, 2013
 
Subduction Zone wrote:
Two automatic fails for Shubee, hmm, I wonder if we can get him in trouble for spamming the site. I do believe that might be against the rules here.
I happily confess to spamming the site with truths that you can't accept.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#54
Feb 9, 2013
 
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry Nutten,
You're as clueless and as misinformed about real science as Sub Duc.
So, your argument is that human activity in NO WAY adds carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere.

Brilliant.

Care to provide ANY evidence to support such a ridiculous position?

No? Didn't think so

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#55
Feb 9, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
No, ice core data is good data for the location it was collected from.
My statement is not about how ice core data compares with itself, it is about how ice core data compares with data collected from other places.
Here's a graph of collected CO2 data from plant stomata from three locations as compared to CO2 data from the Law Dome ice core. Notice how there is a difference in the three data sets. Most notably the stomata values were collected from the NH and show more variability than the SH ice core data. The reason for the difference is the earth's precession.
http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm135...
What that graph demostrates is this:

Since the ice shelf is neither a location which produces a great deal of CO2 (there is no volcano right there, no forest fires, etc) nor absorbs a great deal of CO2 (there is no rain forest right there) it gives a good average for the CO2 in the atmosphere without suffering from the spikes or dips of particular events.

As such a major event which happens in, let's say Italy, will cause only a minor blip in the CO2 record at the ice core as the CO2 diffuses out from the original event.

However, despite THOUSANDS of years of only minor fluctuations caused by everything from massive forest fires to huge volcanic eruptions, we see that there is a sudden and progressively worse spike in CO2 levels coinciding with the increasing amount of fossil fuel consumption by humans.

We are not burning 99% of our fossil fuels at the ice core. There is no reason for a peculiar spike at that location.

Yet, the increase is CLEAR and DRAMATIC.

And it just so happens to be the LOGICAL CONCLUSION of the results of pulling BILLIONS OF TONS of carbon from sequestration below the surface and burning it.

Since: Sep 07

Valley Village, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#56
Feb 9, 2013
 
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
First I am not an idiot. You want to call me names, you'll be yelling at an empty space, I haven't been in fourth grade in decades and have no desire to participate in that level of discourse.
Yes, it makes a difference where a proxy study collects it's data. Since every location on earth has a different set of environmental conditions, then each study is impacted by those specific conditions. To understand any proxy study requires an understanding of the conditions under which the data was collected.
You make not have been in 4th grade for decades but that doesn't mean you passed fourth grade.

The REASON you use a site like the ice shelf is because the regional conditions are extremely stable.

Hence, the chart that _you_ presented demonstrates little to no change of CO2 levels at that location despite the fact that events around the world in other locations may have resulted in spikes in CO2 at that location.

A 100% increase in CO2 during a forest fire in one particular valley in North America is a big increase for that one tiny location but doesn't cause a huge spike in OVERALL CO2 levels.

That's why ice cores are useful. You are comparing the AVERAGE CO2 levels at a location that doesn't experience spikes in CO2.

And lookin at the chart that _you_ present, you see a MASSIVE spike in CO2 levels coinciding with the increased release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

Now, let me restate this because it seems to be going over your head a little.

As we INCREASE the amount of CO2 we put in the atmosphere, there is an INCREASE in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.

I know, that's a little hard for Fundie conservative retards to grasp, so I'll use an example.

If you have a basket with 3 apples and you add more apples to the basket, the basket will hold.... MORE apples.

Jesus does not magically remove the apples.

The CO2 we put in the atmosphere goes into the atmosphere because we are ADDING it to the atmosphere.

Is ANY of this sinking in?

The more you add to something, the more of it there is.
MIDutch

Waterford, MI

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#57
Feb 9, 2013
 
PHD wrote:
More scientific science fiction.
This would be a LIE!

Why do you "fundamentalist xrisitans" LIE so much? Isn't LYING a sin in your religion? I know I read a commandment about it somewhere.
PHD wrote:
The real scientist diagree.
You only have one? And he/she is the only "real" one? Really? And you expect everyone around the world to believe this one scientist who says (or gets paid to say) exactly what YOU want to hear, and ignore the rest of the majority who disagree with him/her?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#58
Feb 9, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
So, your argument is that human activity in NO WAY adds carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere.
Absolutely not. I simply side with and assert the intensely plausible claims of the scientific dissidents. everythingimportant.org/climategate

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#59
Feb 9, 2013
 
Nuggin wrote:
So, your argument is that human activity in NO WAY adds carbon dioxide and other gases to the atmosphere.
Your foolish supposition obviously contradicts this remark by Freeman Dyson:

"Here I am 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

In other words, religionists like you believe the drivel produced by the holy brotherhood of twilight model experts but your understanding of science, like theirs, is just a superstitious religion.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#60
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
What that graph demostrates is this:
Since the ice shelf is neither a location which produces a great deal of CO2 (there is no volcano right there, no forest fires, etc) nor absorbs a great deal of CO2 (there is no rain forest right there) it gives a good average for the CO2 in the atmosphere without suffering from the spikes or dips of particular events.
As such a major event which happens in, let's say Italy, will cause only a minor blip in the CO2 record at the ice core as the CO2 diffuses out from the original event.
.
No, what the graph indicates is that proxy studies are location specific. The stomatal studies were in the NH the ice core data from the SH. Not only are the values higher and lower, but the rate of change in the NH is more frequent. Precession.

Why are CO2 values in the antarctic ice core data less variable, precession.

No, that's not a contradiction.
Fun Facts

Las Cruces, NM

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#61
Feb 9, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Nuggin wrote:
<quoted text>
A 100% increase in CO2 during a forest fire in one particular valley in North America is a big increase for that one tiny location but doesn't cause a huge spike in OVERALL CO2 levels.
That's why ice cores are useful. You are comparing the AVERAGE CO2 levels at a location that doesn't experience spikes in CO2.
And lookin at the chart that _you_ present, you see a MASSIVE spike in CO2 levels coinciding with the increased release of CO2 from burning fossil fuels..
No, you don't see a massive spike in OVERALL CO2 levels on the chart. Look at the legend. Another study is added in later years. And as with all proxy studies, the further back in time the fewer data points to collect. Same with the ice core data where some points are as much as 1000 years apart.

http://i90.photobucket.com/albums/k247/dhm135...

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

Other Recent Global Warming Discussions

Search the Global Warming Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
A few degrees matter a lot 38 min litesong 75
Will it, won't it? Part 3 (Aug '12) 1 hr litesong 1,538
Scott briefly sits with climate scientists 3 hr SpaceBlues 1
Mega Aussie solar project falls on global warmi... 3 hr Jim the Hoax Denier 2
Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 3 hr Mothra 32,320
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 3 hr mememine69 3,330
New NASA sunspot predictions (Sep '09) 5 hr SpaceBlues 7
•••
•••