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.

Jimbo

Romania

#335 Feb 19, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There are no experimental tests of climate change mitigation, that's how you can tell its a hoax and the theory that man made greenhouse gas emissions are causing catastrophic climate change is pseudoscience.
The problem with both these theories is that neither can be put to a scientific test. Karl Popper's view is that a true science is one in which experiments can be derived which could refute the theory under consideration. In a pseudo-science, no experiment which would finally refute a theory can be made. For example, a theory regarding the relationship between heat and temperature can be tested in any laboratory at any time and can, therefore, be classed as scientific. On the other hand, no experiment on evolution or biblical creation can be carried out, these must then be classed as pseudo-science.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#336 Feb 20, 2013
Nuggin wrote:
Basic chemistry at the high school level shows that reducing the amount of carbon leaving facilities like coal plants reduces the amount of carbon being put in the atmosphere.
There's no evidence man made carbon dioxide causes catastrophic climate change; climate change mitigation is a hoax.

Climate science has failed because it hasn't tested the theory it promotes to save the Earth. Computer models aren't good enough to describe climate, let alone to describe how to mitigate climate change.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#337 Feb 20, 2013
Jimbo wrote:
The problem with both these theories is that neither can be put to a scientific test.
Sure they can, there's nothing stopping an atmospheric test of man made greenhouse gas on climate except the effect is too weak to measure.

.
Jimbo wrote:
Karl Popper's view is that a true science is one in which experiments can be derived which could refute the theory under consideration. In a pseudo-science, no experiment which would finally refute a theory can be made. For example, a theory regarding the relationship between heat and temperature can be tested in any laboratory at any time and can, therefore, be classed as scientific. On the other hand, no experiment on evolution or biblical creation can be carried out, these must then be classed as pseudo-science.
There are many experiments that show the principles of evolution but no experiments that show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on climate.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#338 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
You and Brian_G are both incorrect:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar...
That's a search page, not a citation of a compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.

Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#339 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Sure they can, there's nothing stopping an atmospheric test of man made greenhouse gas on climate except the effect is too weak to measure.
.
<quoted text>There are many experiments that show the principles of evolution but no experiments that show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on climate.
LOL.

The only people who find brian's argument convincing are creationists, and he has to distance himself from them.

And no, the effect is not too weak to measure:
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...
1 post removed

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#341 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's a search page, not a citation of a compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found.
You said there were no experiments done on CO2 and global warming. That one page showed that there were quite a few. And that was only the first page. That was enough to bust your claim.

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#342 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Sure they can, there's nothing stopping an atmospheric test of man made greenhouse gas on climate except the effect is too weak to measure.
.
<quoted text>There are many experiments that show the principles of evolution but no experiments that show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on climate.
Are you aware of the historical rate of decline of the ratio of C13 to C12 in the atmosphere, and its implications?

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#343 Feb 20, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
LOL. The only people who find brian's argument convincing are creationists,
Since when did creationists back experimental tests?

.
Fair Game wrote:
and he has to distance himself from them.
Fair Game has creationist sympathies.

.
Fair Game wrote:
And no, the effect is not too weak to measure:[]URL deleted]
The effect of man made greenhouse gas on climate has never been experimentally measured. There has been no experimental test of climate change mitigation. Scientists have never added greenhouse gas to or removed greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and measured subsequent climate change to fine a signal from man made greenhouse gas emissions. They are barely detectable, not causative.

Simple facts, we can't control climate. If we can mitigate climate change then our greenhouse gas emissions are already mitigating against catastrophic global cooling; let's not stop.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#344 Feb 20, 2013
Drew wrote:
In order for a hypothesis to be considered a valid theory, it must be confirmed through repeated experimental tests. Has macro evolution (all plants, animals, and people descendant from a single ancestor) ever been tested and proven through repeated experimental tests? NO!
Actually yes it has.
Drew wrote:
Then why do we teach it to our children as a law of nature?
Not a "law", but a scientific theory. Just like we teach the theory of gravity. We teach them because they are scientific theories that work.
Drew wrote:
In doing so we are teaching our children not to think critically with an open mind and thus we stifle innovation and valid scientific research.
On the contrary, teaching them critical thinking, as well as the correct information in regards to the current state of scientific thought is essential. For that is what it is needed if current scientific theories are to be modified or replaced with better theories by future scientists.

Unfortunately creationists wish to stifle genuine scientific information and present religious apologetics instead of critical thinking. Then they lie and claim that what they are presenting IS "critical thinking", then whine when actual critical thinking is applied to their position.

It's possible that evolution may be falsified one day. But the actions of pseudo-science supporters of the creationist movement would ironically prevent that from ever happening.

But they don't care about their country having competent scientists because scientists will be irrelevant when Jesus comes back. In their lifetime.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#345 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Since when did creationists back experimental tests?
.
<quoted text>Fair Game has creationist sympathies.
You're a Rick Santorum supporter fer Chrissakes. Of course you have creationist sympathies.
whatup

Cibolo, TX

#346 Feb 20, 2013
Dude: A dude is a hair on an elephants buttox. The dudes on the rump of an elephant help keep flies away from that

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#347 Feb 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
You're a Rick Santorum supporter fer Chrissakes. Of course you have creationist sympathies.
Climate change mitigation is like creationism in that they have the same amount of experimental support; none.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#348 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>That's a search page, not a citation of a compelling experimental test of climate change mitigation.
Please cite the most compelling experiment you've found.
Isn't it shocking that Sub Duc merely searched for a few keywords (experiments on global warming) and thinks that's a compelling argument?

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#349 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Climate change mitigation is like creationism in that they have the same amount of experimental support; none.
Actually, spontaneous quantum creationism is no longer an esoteric concept that is only appreciated and taught by mathematical physicists. The concept is now acknowledged to be real science in the popular culture. There is plenty of experimental support for quantum theory. Quantum creationism is just an esoteric corollary.
http://everythingimportant.org/naturalism
Jimbo

┼kersberga, Sweden

#350 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Sure they can, there's nothing stopping an atmospheric test of man made greenhouse gas on climate except the effect is too weak to measure.
.
<quoted text>There are many experiments that show the principles of evolution but no experiments that show the effect of man made greenhouse gas on climate.
Name any reproducible experiment that proves biological evolution.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#351 Feb 20, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Since when did creationists back experimental tests?
Creationists want an experimental test for evolution; you want one for AGW.

Why? Because you both want to reject the science, and citing the lack of an experiment seems to good excuse.

http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_t...

“When you treat people as they ”

Since: Nov 10

treat you they get offended.

#352 Feb 20, 2013
Fun Facts wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words you were unable to find a graph that demonstrated your position on the distribution of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere.
Sorry??? you provided an irrelevant graph I shows you how it was irrelevant not only in the data itself but the analysis of that data. This tells us quite a lot about your lack of objectivity.

You want a graph that show the co2 concentration on a world scale on a given day in 2003. Note that this also includes a reference chart for PPM figures
http://www-airs.jpl.nasa.gov/images/AIRS_CO2_...

and here is one showing a the trend for 10 years
http://www.seafriends.org.nz/issues/global/co...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#353 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>Isn't it shocking that Sub Duc merely searched for a few keywords (experiments on global warming) and thinks that's a compelling argument?
It is a compelling argument when the other side claims that no experimental work was done. My very short search showed that that idea was false. I did not even have to look into the quality of the research since the statement given by you and Brian_G was obviously wrong.

I think Brian saw that and realized his mistake. Unfortunately Shoob the Boob is, well he is Shoob the Boob, which means he is almost hysterically wrong in all of his posts. In fact having Shoob on the opposition means that a thinking person will think twice before agreeing with Shoob.

Since: Nov 08

Location hidden

#354 Feb 20, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
It is a compelling argument when the other side claims that no experimental work was done. My very short search showed that that idea was false.
You merely reported searching scholarly papers for the words "experiments global warming." Google doesn't index the word "on." So you still have to make a selection.

I've created toy mathematical universes and experimented with these mathematical models but empiricists wouldn't call my experimenting with toys as a test of the real world.
http://everythingimportant.org/relativity/spe...

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#355 Feb 20, 2013
Shubee wrote:
<quoted text>You merely reported searching scholarly papers for the words "experiments global warming." Google doesn't index the word "on." So you still have to make a selection.
I've created toy mathematical universes and experimented with these mathematical models but empiricists wouldn't call my experimenting with toys as a test of the real world.
http://everythingimportant.org/relativity/spe...
And Shoob just admitted that he is wrong again. Referring to your own blog in a debate, unless asked to see your blog, as evidence is an automatic loss. It does not matter what is in it. You know and I know that the garbage in that blog has been debunked thousands of times over.

At any rate I did slightly misread Brian_G's post because of all of the adds on the stupid page. I switched to Firefox where I have my adblock running and it was clearer so I redid my search and found that you and he are still wrong:

http://scholar.google.com/scholar...

What a shock!

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 Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 19 min Grey Ghost 1,581,893
News not Real News: a look at what didn't happen thi... 33 min Buddy 21
News Police: Suspect who drove over protesters at Vi... 41 min Retribution 162
News Plenty at stake in jury selection for Menendez ... 51 min CodeTalker 2
News Thousands Protest Roe V. Wade Decision (Jan '08) 51 min Closet X 316,361
News Free speech supporters: Outnumbered, but rally ... 52 min CodeTalker 2
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 57 min CodeTalker 287,574
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr ImPeach 26,451
News Dear Trump Voters: The 1950's Aren't Coming Back 1 hr Katrina 1,432
More from around the web