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: Mar 12

Location hidden

#713 Apr 4, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
Just another right-wing anti-science nut demanding to dumb down our schools by teaching "both sides" of a subject which has only one.
C'mon, doofus, let's require "both sides" of the spherical-earth theory, or "both sides" of the law of gravity. Gotta be permitted to teach "both sides" of the slavery debate in History, too, and geology will have to feature "both sides" of the question of Earth's age...
And people wonder why our educational system is regressing??
But you have to teach both sides of the "education is regressing" hypothesis too you know. Toxically high levels of self-esteem can overcome any shortfalls in mere competence. Isn't that the new strategy?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#714 Apr 4, 2013
I wrote: "Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
"
ChristineM wrote:
...WTF has putting up an umbrella got to do with controlling storms?...
To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...

Note the verb 'make', that means control. Looks like Chris doesn't understand the difference between climate mitigation and adaptation. I always suspected that.

We should never underestimate the power of ignorance. Fear drives man made global warming alarmism, not reason.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#715 Apr 4, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
What is unusual about Minnesota's spring? It looks a bit warmer than it was when I lived there but that was almost thirty years ago. Snow used to last until about halfway through April. "Spring" was a very short season when I grew up there. What passed for spring lasted 4 to 6 weeks and then we were into summer.
What is it like there now, and I am speaking of the Minneapolis area in specific.
I see that you are from Minneapolis, have you ever had breakfast at Al's Breakfast? I miss their hash browns.
Nothing very unusual about Minnesota weather in the last 50 years other than recently, winters seems less cold (fewer sub-zero highs) and summer temps do not exceed 100 degrees as often as they did.

Once, in the previous millennium, but nobody goes to Al's anymore cuz the line is so long it generally takes an hour or more to get a seat ;-)

-koolaid

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#716 Apr 4, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
.... Toxically high levels of self-esteem can overcome any shortfalls in mere competence.
...
That must be a daily struggle for you.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#717 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
I wrote: "Controlling storms, starting or stopping them is mitigation. Using an umbrella to stay dry in a storm is adaptation. Can you understand the difference?
"
<quoted text>To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...
Note the verb 'make', that means control. Looks like Chris doesn't understand the difference between climate mitigation and adaptation. I always suspected that.
We should never underestimate the power of ignorance. Fear drives man made global warming alarmism, not reason.
Yes dear but obviously you can’t. How the fook do you control a storm with an umbrella? Or were you once again being facetious?

Yes dear I also know what the word mitigation means. Mitigation is a control that is added AFTER the fact.

No dear, it’s not fear, it’s reason as supplied by the consensus of science, not the excuses and denials of morons with little intelligence such as you fail to cite.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#718 Apr 5, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>To mitigate is to make less severe or hostile.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mit...
The scientific concensus is that Man **HAS** contributed greatly to climate change (massive increases in CO2, depletion of carbon sinks, etc).

If the antonyms of "mitigate" are agreed to as: intensify, provoke, stir, worsen ( http://thesaurus.com/browse/mitigate ),
then it can be said that we HAVE provoked (etc) or at bare minimum participated in some ways to the documented increase of global temperatures over the past 100+ years.

With current technologies just now becoming viable for consumers(wind, solar, etc), perhaps we can "mitigate" our role in catastrophic climate change. Changes that would be FAR MORE COSTLY than a pitiful 'carbon tax', etc that you're worried about.

Or do you work for the oil and natural gas industry?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#719 Apr 5, 2013
On July 20 1969 Apollo 11 landed on the moon. There were 10 previous Apollo missions that didn't land, they were experimental tests for the moon landing.

In the real world, things are tested before they begin full scale production. Climate change mitigation has never been tested; that's how you can tell it's a hoax.
litesong

Lynnwood, WA

#720 Apr 5, 2013
brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver wrote:
On July 20 1969 Apollo 11 landed on the moon.
In 1955, 14 years before the true manned moon landing, people made a movie about a future moon landing. Those people had no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for their poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaas(if they had ANY hi skule) & they had no science or mathematics degrees.

In the movie, the moon landing was predicted to occur 145 years later, in the year 2100, only in error by 131 years, & 10+ TIMES the actual time span.

As bad a prediction as the movie made, it pales in comparison to other mathematics errors that "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has made of 1 million TIMES, 1000 TIMES, 3000 TIMES, & 73 million TIMES.

It is easily understood that "brian_g stumble butt dumpster diver" has no upper class science, chemistry, astronomy, physics, algebra or pre-calc for its poorly earned hi skule DEE-plooomaa & it has no science or mathematics degrees.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#721 Apr 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
The scientific concensus is that Man **HAS** contributed greatly to climate change (massive increases in CO2, depletion of carbon sinks, etc).
Show me a link about that consensus? And make sure it's not a Government funded or al Gore funded study.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#722 Apr 5, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Don’t talk utter bollocks? Mitigation is not the heart of the issue, the issue is that climate change exists it is proven to exist and it is agreed by scientific consensus to be aggravated and amplified by mans intervention.
Is the issue Climate Change exists? You are an Alarmist. Who is saying the climate doesn't change and go through cycles? Now what do you say to the Scientists that say it's not caused by man? Yes the Scientists that are not on a Government payroll. Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. And the Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#723 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Is the issue Climate Change exists? You are an Alarmist. Who is saying the climate doesn't change and go through cycles? Now what do you say to the Scientists that say it's not caused by man? Yes the Scientists that are not on a Government payroll. Scientists arguing that global warming is primarily caused by natural processes. And the Scientists arguing that global warming will have few negative consequences.
There's really only a tiny handful of scientists like that. Their arguments are discredited and go against the evidence. And they tend to be free market fundamentalists or "God's in his heaven, so global warming can't be a problem" creationists.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#724 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Show me a link about that consensus? And make sure it's not a Government funded or al Gore funded study.
I will not pander to your paranoia about a government conspiracy that our government is falsly manipulating data to promote global warming.

That's your issue to deal with.

There are very few (if any) PRIVATE climatologists.

What we **DO** have is summed up by the "Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opini...

"The scientific opinion on climate change is that the Earth's climate system is unequivocally warming, and it is more than 90% certain that humans are causing most of it through activities that increase concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, such as deforestation and burning fossil fuels.[1][2][3][4] This scientific consensus is expressed in synthesis reports, by scientific bodies of national or international standing, and by surveys of opinion among climate scientists. Individual scientists, universities, and laboratories contribute to the overall scientific opinion via their peer-reviewed publications, and the areas of collective agreement and relative certainty are summarised in these high level reports and surveys.

National and international science academies and scientific societies have assessed the current scientific opinion, in particular on recent global warming. These assessments have largely followed or endorsed the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) position of January 2001 which states:

An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system... There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.[5]
The main conclusions of the IPCC Working Group I on global warming were the following:

1.The global average surface temperature has risen 0.6 ± 0.2 °C since the late 19th century, and 0.17 °C per decade in the last 30 years.[6]

2."There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities", in particular emissions of the greenhouse gases carbon dioxide and methane.[7]

3.If greenhouse gas emissions continue the warming will also continue, with temperatures projected to increase by 1.4 °C to 5.8 °C between 1990 and 2100. Accompanying this temperature increase will be increases in some types of extreme weather and a projected sea level rise.[8] From IPCC Working Group II: On balance the impacts of global warming will be significantly negative, especially for larger values of warming.[9]

No scientific body of national or international standing maintains a formal opinion dissenting from any of these three main points; the last was the American Association of Petroleum Geologists, which in 2007 updated its 1999 statement rejecting the likelihood of human influence on recent climate with its current non-committal position.[10][11] Some other organizations, primarily those focusing on geology, also hold non-committal positions."

<<Truncated for brevity. More at link above>>

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#725 Apr 5, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
I will not pander to your paranoia about a government conspiracy that our government is falsly manipulating data to promote global warming.
That's your issue to deal with.
There are very few (if any) PRIVATE climatologists.

<<Truncated for brevity. More at link above>>
Nice, Wikipedia. Here are more from your source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientis... It's not a conspiracy that the government revolves around money. http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2... NASA satellite data from the years 2000 through 2011 show the Earth's atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than alarmist computer models have predicted, reports a new study in the peer-reviewed science journal Remote Sensing. The study indicates far less future global warming will occur than United Nations computer models have predicted, and supports prior studies indicating increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide trap far less heat than alarmists have claimed.
Why are all the models by the alarmists manipulated to make it look worse then it is?
http://news.yahoo.com/nasa-data-blow-gaping-h...
Why is NASA making up things that are not true? Who funds NASA?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa...
MIT scientists baffled by global warming theory, contradicts scientific data http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/10/30/mit-sci...
But you stick to wikipedia....LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#726 Apr 5, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
There's really only a tiny handful of scientists like that. Their arguments are discredited and go against the evidence. And they tend to be free market fundamentalists or "God's in his heaven, so global warming can't be a problem" creationists.
It has nothing to do with religion, I know you bigots like something to blame it on. Warmest Temperatures In 4,000 Years? Not So Fast, Global Warming Alarmists http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/... The scientific record shows quite clearly that current temperatures are significantly cooler than the 4,000-year average, yet the media uses a seriously flawed study to claim the opposite. Global warming alarmists put their trust in the media, while global warming realists put their trust in the science.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#727 Apr 5, 2013
While many scientists are willing to go on record to point out trends in global warming, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that they see no evidence of global warming at all. Less formal surveys amongst climatologists have pointed in the same direction.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#728 Apr 5, 2013
Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference

“I am a skeptic …. Global warming has become a new religion.”— Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.

*“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly …. As a scientist I remain skeptical.”— Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”

* Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history …. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”— U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.

*“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds …. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”— Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.

*“The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”— Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.

I guess Gore hasn't got to them yet, maybe he is enjoying flying around the world to one of his mansions laughing at you Alarmist nuts....LOL

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#729 Apr 5, 2013
“Gore prompted me to start delving into the science again and I quickly found myself solidly in the skeptic camp … . Climate models can at best be useful for explaining climate changes after the fact.” — Meteorologist Hajo Smit of Holland, who reversed his belief in man-made warming to become a skeptic, is a former member of the Dutch U.N. IPCC committee.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#730 Apr 5, 2013
“It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”— U.S. Government Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg of the Hurricane Research Division of NOAA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.

*“Even doubling or tripling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapor and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.”— Geoffrey G. Duffy, a professor in the Department of Chemical and Materials Engineering of the University of Auckland, New Zealand.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#731 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
While many scientists are willing to go on record to point out trends in global warming, more than 17,000 scientists have signed a petition circulated by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying that they see no evidence of global warming at all. Less formal surveys amongst climatologists have pointed in the same direction.
Scientists?

You could have got a maths degree 30 years ago and worked as an estate agent selling house since then and still sign the petition.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#732 Apr 5, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
Scientists abandon global warming ‘lie’
650 to dissent at U.N. climate change conference
“I am a skeptic …. Global warming has become a new religion.”— Nobel Prize Winner for Physics, Ivar Giaever.
*“Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receiving any funding, I can speak quite frankly …. As a scientist I remain skeptical.”— Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Joanne Simpson, the first woman in the world to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology and formerly of NASA who has authored more than 190 studies and has been called “among the most pre-eminent scientists of the last 100 years.”
* Warming fears are the “worst scientific scandal in the history …. When people come to know what the truth is, they will feel deceived by science and scientists.”— U.N. IPCC Japanese Scientist Dr. Kiminori Itoh, an award-winning Ph.D. environmental physical chemist.
*“The IPCC has actually become a closed circuit; it doesn’t listen to others. It doesn’t have open minds …. I am really amazed that the Nobel Peace Prize has been given on scientifically incorrect conclusions by people who are not geologists.”— Indian geologist Dr. Arun D. Ahluwalia at Punjab University and a board member of the U.N.-supported International Year of the Planet.
*“The models and forecasts of the U.N. IPCC “are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.”— Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.
I guess Gore hasn't got to them yet, maybe he is enjoying flying around the world to one of his mansions laughing at you Alarmist nuts....LOL
Gullible, aren't you?

There were never 650 scientists at the conference.

It's just a list of scientists who have said something James Inhofe views as sceptical of AGW (even if they say they believe in the risks of AGW and ask to be removed from the list).

A bit of Soviet style propaganda- you swallowed it.

http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2008/12/17/mo...

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.

Environment Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming made Paris floods far more likel... (Jun '16) Jun 16 Bad Moon Rising 147
News Lenoir City considers stormwater utility fee Jun 14 Local native 4
News Is fighting climate change a Jewish duty? Jun 12 yehoshooah adam 3
News The Last Mango in Paris Jun 9 USA Today 1
News Revitalization Plan of Mississauga's Brownfield... Jun 9 Greenlands goes B... 1
News Most Americans want 'aggressive' action on clim... Jun 8 tina anne 2
News Trump pulls US from global warming accord, to a... Jun 7 Red Crosse 132
More from around the web