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: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#628 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Life is risky. We have the technology to adapt to climate change; that's been experimentally tested. We don't have the technology to mitigate climate change, there's no published experiment that shows climate change mitigation is possible.
CO2 cause warming. Experimentally proven.

Emitting less CO2 cause less warming.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#629 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
CO2 cause warming. Experimentally proven.
There's no experiment showing man made CO2 changing climate temperature. We have small scale lab experiments that show the greenhouse effect but no field experiments of that phenomenon.

.
Fair Game wrote:
Emitting less CO2 cause less warming.
Another untested theory, there's no test showing taking CO2 from the atmosphere or emitting less or more CO2 causing any climate change.

The experimental record tells me, the greenhouse effect of anthropogenic CO2 is so weak it must be insignificant.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#630 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There's no experiment showing man made CO2 changing climate temperature.
Yes there is.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#631 Mar 19, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
Yes there is.[URL deleted]
There isn't.

The experiment refers to all CO2, "the connection between greenhouse gas increases in the atmosphere and global warming." The experiment doesn't test the effect of just anthropogenic CO2.

We can't control CO2 emissions from geological sources or from the oceans. CO2 makes our planet habitable; without CO2 in the air, we would all die.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#632 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>There isn't.
There is.

According to radiative physics and decades of laboratory measurements, increased CO2 in the atmosphere is expected to absorb more infrared radiation as it escapes back out to space. In 1970, NASA launched the IRIS satellite measuring infrared spectra. In 1996, the Japanese Space Agency launched the IMG satellite which recorded similar observations. Both sets of data were compared to discern any changes in outgoing radiation over the 26 year period (Harries 2001). What they found was a drop in outgoing radiation at the wavelength bands that greenhouse gases such as CO2 and methane (CH4) absorb energy. The change in outgoing radiation was consistent with theoretical expectations. Thus the paper found "direct experimental evidence for a significant increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect". This result has been confirmed by subsequent papers using data from later satellites (Griggs 2004, Chen 2007).

http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#634 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>You live in Dubai, no wonder you don't want to restrict fossil fuel production. I'll bet you wouldn't mind a new tax on fossil fuel use. Fossil fuels are vital commodities so a new tax would only raise their price making more profits for those with stockpiles.
No, as a Westerner I would be happy for this region to make less on fossil fuels - dollars extracted from western countries among others. That is a point I made earlier.
...in the USA the government doesn't drive innovation or markets.
Man that is dumb. What gave massive impetus to innovation in aircraft, digital computing, even teflon...what caused the foundation of the internet? Who built the interstate highway system? Hoover Dam? GPS?

You are reciting an ideological mantra, not a reflection of the actual facts of innovation. Its always been a mixed bag of public and private investment.
Remove all subsidies from green energy too; that's only fair.
Great. You first. No subsidies on fossil fuels.
We were attacked on 9/11; that will not stand. We defeated the Taliban government and established a new government in Afghanistan that won't tolerate the terrorists.
Yeah right. Lets see how long that lasts. Afghans who benefited from the US invasion are scrambling to get their money and families out while they can. I know them. You have not even scratched the surface of Afghan society's barbarous roots. Karzai is a warlord.

China builds super rail and infrastructure at home. The USA wastes its time trying to reform the unwilling overseas at great expense and the lives of brave soldiers, while letting its infrastructure at home fall apart. Who does the future belong to?
We're still at war in Afghanistan; I oppose any cuts in military spending that would endanger the lives of our troops.
You can stay at war in Afghanistan for another generation. It wont help. Or you can save the lives of your troops by bringing them home.

I don't care to defend Dubai. I am a visitor here.

I am more concerned about the erosion of liberties and freedom in the West, in the name of fear. Cowards are never free for long.

Get real. The death toll even for 9/11 was about 1 month's worth of the road death toll. Not trivialising - putting in perspective. The USA is not under the threat posed by the Nazis or the Communists. Has trillions wasted made you more secure?

The threat now is preserving something worth defending. Your own govt agencies are running amok smothering everyone while you still prattle about freedom. Fix your own house.

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#635 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those experiments have been done in the lab, they show far lower 'climate' sensitivity to CO2 than the IPPC's most benign estimate.
True. But you think its OK to simply ignore the feedback on water vapour and methane levels?
The effect is real but the lack of experimental evidence indicates the effect of man made CO2 emissions are insignificant.
Although the rise in average temperatures in lock step with CO2 over the last 150 years can also be ignored? Consider it a real time experiment.

Funny how you don't want to waste a few billion on "untested" innovation but seem happy that your government has wasted 2 trillion on unsuccessful social engineering experiments with Muslims, not to mention the lives of many brave soldiers.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#636 Mar 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I choose not to disclose personal information.
.
<quoted text> Look up geometric, it means if the amount of CO2 doubles in the atmosphere one unit of warming is added, if it doubles again, another unit of warming is added. That means, each molecule of CO2 added to the air has less effect than the molecule added before.
.
<quoted text>If CO2 is disolved in water, you get H2C03; that's how Svante Arrhenius determined the greenhouse effect. If H2CO3 warms, it emits CO2 out of solution.
.
<quoted text>You buy, I'll fly.
So you didnít go to school, fair enough, now we know where we stand with you.

Yes 1 and 1 makes 2, very clever of you to suss that out, however several million plus several million makes a lot of millions. Have you ever considered slump? Yes itís a real word, look it up. Pile up a heap of sand until just before that sand begins to slide. Then add 1 grain (just 1) and watch the pile collapse. The measure of itís collapse is the slump.

However you were not discussing CO2 you stated a law applying to H2C03. What happens before are after it is H2CO3 is irrelevant to that one grain of sand

Pay for you own trip, one way would save you money.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#637 Mar 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So you didnít go to school, fair enough, now we know where we stand with you.
I didn't write I didn't go to school, I refused to disclose my CV. I'd recommend all posters take care when disclosing information about themselves or other people.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Yes 1 and 1 makes 2, very clever of you to suss that out, however several million plus several million makes a lot of millions.
Still, addition is different from geometric progression, as CO2 doubles, temperature increases arithmetically so it takes more CO2 emissions to create the same warming as we go along.

.
ChristineM wrote:
Have you ever considered slump? Yes itís a real word, look it up. Pile up a heap of sand until just before that sand begins to slide. Then add 1 grain (just 1) and watch the pile collapse. The measure of itís collapse is the slump.
Are you talking about feedback? If there's one area in climate science with even less experimental testing than CO2's greenhouse gas effect, that would be climate feedback.

.
ChristineM wrote:
However you were not discussing CO2 you stated a law applying to H2C03. What happens before are after it is H2CO3 is irrelevant to that one grain of sand Pay for you own trip, one way would save you money.
When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium producing carbonic acid

CO2 + H2O = H2CO4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid

"On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4į; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8į."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
litesong

Everett, WA

#638 Mar 20, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
So you didnít go to school
Unlike dirtling, who never got a hi skule DEE-plooomaa,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' did get a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(which it is very proud of).'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' never took upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc & never got any further science or mathematics education......which accounts for its poor math attempts, compiled in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has not attempted further math calculations in 1 to 1.5 years.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#639 Mar 21, 2013
litesong wrote:
Unlike dirtling, who never got a hi skule DEE-plooomaa,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' did get a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(which it is very proud of).'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' never took upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc & never got any further science or mathematics education......which accounts for its poor math attempts, compiled in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has not attempted further math calculations in 1 to 1.5 years.
^^^Ad hominem arguments are fallacies. They don't want children taught critical thinking because they rely on irrational arguments and appeals to emotion.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#640 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>^^^Ad hominem arguments are fallacies. They don't want children taught critical thinking because they rely on irrational arguments and appeals to emotion.
This argument is itself a logical fallacy.

Post idiocy, expect to get called an idiot: logic.

Post idiocy and demand a polite debate: illogical.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#641 Mar 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
This argument is itself a logical fallacy. Post idiocy, expect to get called an idiot: logic. Post idiocy and demand a polite debate: illogical.
Showing an argument is illogical isn't an ad hominem argument. Calling a poster names is ad hominem argument.

See the difference?

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#642 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Showing an argument is illogical isn't an ad hominem argument. Calling a poster names is ad hominem argument.
See the difference?
I didn't say your arguments were illogical; I said they were idiotic.

All you do is post idiotic arguments again and again just to annoy people.

So rightly you get called a troll.

Your protests are just pearl clutching.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#643 Mar 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't write I didn't go to school, I refused to disclose my CV. I'd recommend all posters take care when disclosing information about themselves or other people.
.
<quoted text>Still, addition is different from geometric progression, as CO2 doubles, temperature increases arithmetically so it takes more CO2 emissions to create the same warming as we go along.
.
<quoted text>Are you talking about feedback? If there's one area in climate science with even less experimental testing than CO2's greenhouse gas effect, that would be climate feedback.
.
<quoted text>When carbon dioxide dissolves in water it exists in chemical equilibrium producing carbonic acid
CO2 + H2O = H2CO4
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbonic_acid
"On the other hand, any doubling of the percentage of carbon dioxide in the air would raise the temperature of the earth's surface by 4į; and if the carbon dioxide were increased fourfold, the temperature would rise by 8į."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svante_Arrhenius
The fact that you went or did not god to school will reveal nothing other than your ignorance.

And there are a LOT of co2 emissions.

No I was talking about slump, you should not try and change what people say just because you donít understand, it just makes you look stupid

Yes we know this and I will repeat that H2C04 is not CO2

With the US pumping out over 5 billion tonnes a years and china and India vying for supremacy in the pollution stakes and carbon sinks either sinking or becoming saturated I donít really see your point
litesong

Everett, WA

#644 Mar 21, 2013
itesong wrote:
Unlike dirtling, who never got a hi skule DEE-plooomaa,'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' did get a poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa(which it is very proud of).'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' never took upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc & never got any further science or mathematics education......which accounts for its poor math attempts, compiled in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has not attempted further math calculations in 1 to 1.5 years.
//////////
'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' flopped:
^^^Ad hominem arguments are fallacies.
//////////
litesong wrote:
Never understood why people who never integrated science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc into their ways of thinking, thought they could make up for their lack by using their liberal arts skills(if it could be described as such).

Still existing in historic truth are accounts for the poor math attempts of 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver', compiled in errors of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES & 73 million TIMES.'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' has not attempted further math calculations in 1 to 1.5 years.

Still existing in social truth are toxic topix AGW thread "DELETES" that 'brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver' is a slimy steenking filthy vile reprobate rooting(& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AND alleged & proud threatener.
SpaceBlues

United States

#645 Mar 21, 2013
My goodness it's H2CO3, not H2CO4.
LessHypeMoreFact

Toronto, Canada

#646 Mar 21, 2013
Teachers are already free to teach any subject that is in doubt. However, this is not a LEGAL issue, and the lawmakers cannot 'manufacture doubt'.

"says state and local school boards and officials cannot prohibit any teacher from helping students analyze and review the "strengths and weaknesses of existing scientific theories' being taught."

The ultimate authority on what is science and what is 'in doubt' is the National Academy of Science and they are UNEQUIVOCAL that AGW is established science, and there is no 'other side' yet strong enough (if ever) to form a 'second side'. As such, there is no 'other side' to teach.

So the only thing they can teach is MISINFORMATION. Something the US system is already doing too much.

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

#648 Mar 22, 2013

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#649 Mar 22, 2013
LessHypeMoreFact wrote:
Teachers are already free to teach any subject that is in doubt. However, this is not a LEGAL issue, and the lawmakers cannot 'manufacture doubt'.... As such, there is no 'other side' to teach. So the only thing they can teach is MISINFORMATION. Something the US system is already doing too much.
There are no experimental test of climate change mitigation; that leaves ONLY doubt. If you had an experiment that shows man made greenhouse gas emission's effect on climate or a test showing the effect and cost of climate change mitigation, there would be no doubt.

Seems perfectly reasonable to discuss the experimental record of man made climate change and climate change mitigation. Why not teach the children well?

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.

Science Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Tyson Foods: New facility in Tennessee to creat... 20 min CodeTalker 12
News Diagnosing Trump: Did America elect a madman? 4 hr Quirky 281
News Composting human bodies is an aim of WSU resear... 7 hr Jules 1
asbestos cleanse discovery needed 13 hr bluebell 1
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 15 hr Dogen 223,009
News How Methane Pollution Puts African-American Com... 17 hr STFU crakkkaz 1
News Watch these bizarre flies dive underwater using... 18 hr Faith 5
More from around the web