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: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1047 Apr 30, 2013
litesong wrote:
Kong_ wrote:
litesong, Brian and Riccardo are deniers and Luddites.
//////////
'recked car fire' flubbed:
Konged is an alarmist, he needs therapy. He needs to have all access to the weather and climate taken away and continue his antidepressants. I bet everyday is another bad day for you Konged? Doom and Gloom the name of your brain.
////////
litesong wrote:
'recked car fire' just told me, we can't get back together.
He is doom and gloom, glad we agree.
litesong

Everett, WA

#1048 Apr 30, 2013
litesong wrote:
'recked car fire' just told me, we can't get back together.
//////////
'recked car fire' fluffed:
He is doom and gloom, glad we agree.
//////////
litesong wrote:
You said, we can't get together.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#1049 Apr 30, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I don't deny the climate goes in cycles, but not due to what man has been doing. With that said, I'm all for clean air, therefore try to not buy China products and drive a green car. Don't watch TV, most of them are made in Pollution from China.
The evidence, despite the politicization, indicates that the Earth is getting warmer. Global average temperatures have increased by .5 to 1 degree over the last 200 years if I recall my reading. Are you then suggesting that this is part of a normal cycle?

What suggests to you that the actions of people have no or negligible impact on global temperatures? It sounds like you agree that we can pollute the atmosphere and that energy efficiency makes sense. I would agree with that.

I have seen proxy evidence that shows the changes in temperature over extensive periods of time. There are facts to support cyclical variance in temperature. However, much of the evidence shows that an increase has accelerated over the last 200 hundred years. This increase is greater than that experienced during the medieval warming period that occurred approximately 1000 years ago. Do you view this as another cyclical fluctuation of greater magnitude?

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#1050 Apr 30, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>I went out today, it was very windy from the North, I saw some clouds they looked white and small, I then checked the weather report and sure enough they confirmed it was windy, then I went out and noticed the wind, I pulled over the side of the road and it seemed less windy, I tried to get others to pull over to slow the wind but they didn't. Then I drove home looking at the sky. LOL...
I hope you spent more time looking at the road.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#1051 Apr 30, 2013
Kong_ wrote:
<quoted text>
"Alarmist"? Not in the least.
But then again, I don't have my head buried in the sand like Brian and yourself.
...a bad day for me, you ask? Well, if you MUST know, the last couple of days I got hit with $450 in car repairs, so I guess I've had better days.
On the whole, though, I'm an optimist.
I have never known you to be an alarmist. Not by any stretch of the imagination that I am can come up with.

Yeah, I drive around in an auto mechanics wet dream. I used to be what would be referred to as a "gear head" in my younger days. I have revived those past interests of late in an effort to minimize the enthusiasms of local mechanics.

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#1052 Apr 30, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There's never been an experimental test of climate change mitigation; that's how you can tell it's a hoax.
What is a hoax? Climate change or climate change mitigation? If you mean that there has never been an experiment testing climate change mitigation and that fact refutes climate change, then I would say your statement is not logical. I am aware that people died of cancer and other diseases long before we hand any idea what they were or how to experiment with them. Not being able to set up an experiment did not limit the etiology of these conditions or prevent the final prognoses from coming true.

If you wouldn't mind clarifying your statement, I would appreciate it. My interpretation may be in error.

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1053 May 1, 2013
Science uses experiments to test and refine theories. There's never been an experiment that shows a man made change in climate or climate change mitigation. Dan might be right, those promoting prototype climate change mitigation without any experimental evidence for their policies, might be acting out of good intentions; let's look at their policy.

They want to tax and restrict fossil fuel use. This forces up fuel and energy prices, harming the poor. And we haven't seen any evidence it will help the climate either.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1054 May 1, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>The evidence, despite the politicization, indicates that the Earth is getting warmer. Global average temperatures have increased by .5 to 1 degree over the last 200 years if I recall my reading. Are you then suggesting that this is part of a normal cycle?
What is a "normal" cycle? Weather and climate are not predictable.

The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017 - as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.

The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used. The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections. These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.

The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000. The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average - within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C. By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C - within a range of 0.28-0.59.

But if it increased by a degree over 200 years, who cares? And that doesn't prove it's man-made.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1055 May 2, 2013
The list of locations that have received record May snowfall from a storm that brought up to 2 feet of snow over the central Rockies continues to grow.

The storm is still going on Thursday and could reach even more unlikely locations over the Plains, Midwest and the South before it is all said and done.

Omaha, Neb., Mason City, Iowa, and Rochester, Minn., are but only several cities that have been clobbered by their biggest May snowfall on record. In many cases in the major cities in the Plains, those records date back to the 1800s.

Just remember it's the warming causing the freezing and if it's warming it's still caused by the warming...LOL

“Headline already in use”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#1056 May 2, 2013
I remember when Global Warming meant the climate was warming. Now, it means changing; I love progress!

What's not to love about global warming?

Brian_G
I love CO2
litesong

Everett, WA

#1057 May 2, 2013
recked car fire wrote:
The list of locations that have received record May snowfall from a storm that brought up to 2 feet of snow over the central Rockies continues to grow.
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).

Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1058 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).
Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.
LOL...LOL....LOL...get some help, please stay in your bunker!

Since: Nov 12

Elk Grove, CA

#1059 May 2, 2013
In the Northern hemisphere we should expect "Global" warming to start soon! Then towards the end of the year into the first part of next year more "Global" cooling.
THESE USED TO BE CALLED SEASONS!
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1060 May 2, 2013
litesong wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, it is the heat causing cold toxic topix AGW denier' toes. Temperatures above the 80th parallel have been over average(as much as 14 degC. over average) for 180 of the last 220 days, from heat flowing towards the NP. While the NP is warmer than average, lots of Arctic cold air is pushed south over Canada, Alaska & the U.S.(been cold in China & India, also).
Yeah, every time a re-pubic-lick-un gets cold toes, it howls that the Earth is globally cooling.
Further proof of CAGW.
Further proof of CAGW Hoax.

Too funny that both sides of the debate will use this argument while claiming the other is UNscientific :-)

“Help religion science wander”

Since: Jan 11

into the night.

#1061 May 2, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>What is a "normal" cycle? Weather and climate are not predictable.
The UK Met Office has revised one of its forecasts for how much the world may warm in the next few years. It says that the average temperature is likely to be 0.43 C above the long-term average by 2017 - as opposed to an earlier forecast that suggested a warming of 0.54C.
The explanation is that a new kind of computer model using different parameters has been used. The Met Office stresses that the work is experimental and that it still stands by its longer-term projections. These forecast significant warming over the course of this century.
The forecasts are all based on a comparison with the average global temperature over the period 1971-2000. The earlier model had projected that the period 2012-16 would be 0.54C above that long-term average - within a range of uncertainty from 0.36-0.72C. By contrast the new model, known as HadGEM3, gives a rise about one-fifth lower than that of 0.43C - within a range of 0.28-0.59.
But if it increased by a degree over 200 years, who cares? And that doesn't prove it's man-made.
Your answer seemed a little piqued. I hope it was nothing I posted. I am just trying to learn a bit more about this subject and asking questions is the best way to do so.

Perhaps "natural cylce" would have been a better choice of words. None the less I did not see your answer. Perhaps I missed it in there somewhere.

Thank you for the interesting information. I have not seen this.

Well, I suppose I care. Much the same as I might care to know about house fires, especially if I have a neighbor that likes to smoke in bed. I may not be able to control his smoking, but I can be prepared in case it gets out of hand.

In any event, the data shows a warming trend that has caused concern for many and there is much more evidence besides these models that this trend is having some impact on our environment. So, it might be important to know about these sorts of things regardless of the cause. But, I am skeptical that a species so capable of manipulating the environment and with a population at 7 billion and growing wouldn't have an impact on the environment that might cause a temperature change. Natural phenomenon can do it. You have already mentioned air pollution as something you are concerned with. Air pollution seems to be the main suspect in warming.

I do find myself leaning on the idea that the suggested regulatory offerings of remediation would not work. I don't think they are as sustainable and functional as they claim to be.

All in all, I accept the data that indicates a global increase in temperature. I am not convinced that there is no anthropogenic origin at least in part, but I am open to new ideas and information on both accounts. In my opinion, under such acceptance, I best efforts might be trained on technical solutions and research in the energy industry rather than on regulatory answers. Brian G. points out that such regulatory efforts would have some adverse effects on the more economically challenged poor people in this country and perhaps everywhere. His point seems reasonable to me and certainly would need to be taken seriously regarding legislation, but none of these things answer the question of human influence on the climate. I will end here as I have already made a fairly wordy post and maybe it will leave an opening for some profitable response.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1062 May 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text> I am just trying to learn a bit more about this subject and asking questions is the best way to do so.
Yes, this sight may be a good place to start for understanding the psychology employed by the keepers of the faith in Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1063 May 2, 2013
As for the science behind CAGW; a single source my not be so easy to come by.
Dont drink the koolaid

Eden Prairie, MN

#1064 May 2, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>
In any event, the data shows a warming trend that has caused concern for many and there is much more evidence besides these models that this trend is having some impact on our environment. So, it might be important to know about these sorts of things regardless of the cause..
Yes, a warming trend and it's impact on the environment.

Much of the raw data that is used to suggest the Earth has been warming is classified as 'proprietary' which means there is not a single scientific academy that can verify the conclusions of Professor Phil Jones, Director of the Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia in Norwich England by the Thames.

As for the "models"; a good place to start in understanding their relevance is to read the remarks associated with the computer code in 'THE HARRY README' files that can be found in: FOI2009.ZIP.

It quickly becomes clear that the data is not recoverable... As has been confirmed by Dr. jones.

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1065 May 3, 2013
RiccardoFire wrote:
<quoted text>Written by Gregg Easterbrook is an American writer, lecturer, and a senior editor of The New Republic. 7 years ago, sounds like Gore, let's not debate this. easterbrook was big on cutting the space program, and writes books, he is all about the money. NASA has been turned into a Government scare tank due to it's funding.
And? All the more reason to consider the consensus is valid.

So you are saying that NASA is falsifying data? Data confirmed and repeated by climatologists from Japan, Sweden, The UK, Russia, Australia

Or are you one that does not believe the claims of science when they interfere with vested interest and commercial profits?

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#1066 May 3, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>No atmospheric tests
.
<quoted text>None of those "experiments/test/simulat ions" have shown a climate change or are compelling tests of climate change mitigation. Name one you like; we can discuss it.
Are you surprised NASA would fear monger when it can get more taxpayer cash?
How much atmosphere? Unless performed in vacuum the test are performed in atmosphere

Opinion, and the thing about opinions is that they are like a$$holes, everyone has one. You have been given links to thousands of such tests and totally ignored them. I am done dealing with ignorance.

I am surprised that you seem to be claiming that NASA is falsifying data.

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.

US News Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 2 min VetnorsGate 1,418,818
News Republicans need to shut down Trump's election ... 3 min Elarena 56
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 3 min JRB 222,473
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 4 min Dogen 204,940
News Trump, aiming to widen support, makes pitch to ... 12 min Sicklecell Supporter 35
News Trump Isn't Bluffing, He'll Deport 11 Million P... 21 min asd 7,734
News Opinion: Racism, bigotry charges take president... 26 min Go Blue Forever 1
News The President has failed us (Jun '12) 3 hr Quirky 393,272
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 4 hr IND 239,443
News News 14 Mins Ago Trump rebukes racism claims as... 6 hr osangaope 45
More from around the web