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.

Elohim

Branford, CT

#378 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.
There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.
Like this one
http://www.research.noaa.gov/climate/t_greenh...

or this one

http://www.nzagrc.org.nz/

or this

http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChangi...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#379 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand"...
So you can't satisfy the creationists' demand for an experiment to prove evolution? Maybe that's because they demand an impossible experiment?

Look in the mirror.
Brian_G wrote:
Please cite the most compelling experimental test you've found for climate change mitigation.
Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>
Name any reproducible experiment that proves biological evolution.
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.
Jimbo wrote:
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.

#380 Feb 21, 2013
Elohim wrote:
Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.

There are thousands of experiments that verify the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evo...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#381 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
Er, no- you must be a cynical liar.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
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:
<quoted text>
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empirical-evi...

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#382 Feb 21, 2013
Test? Yes? Measure? Yes.

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...

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#383 Feb 21, 2013
OMG, why is tnis not surprising!?? The same anti-science idiot righties who want "both sides" of evolution taught to kids (even though there's only one, the scientific side) now wants a NEW exercise in political propaganda forced into our schools!

Why does the right hate education? My theory's simple - idiots are righties, and righties are idiots.:)
SpaceBlues

Tomball, TX

#384 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
..
LIAR.

How could scientists devise computer models if there are no experimental results?

Come on, ask your wife, if you have one. Otherwise, ask your grocer or senator.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#385 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Those aren't experiments, not one. There have been no published experimental tests of man made greenhouse gas and climate change; the effect must be too weak to measure.
There are thousands of experiments that verify the theory of evolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_evo...
Brainless_G still pushing his "experimental global warming mitigation" BS on these boards, I see.

No, Brainless, scientific facts about greenhouse gases aren't "experiments." They're FACTS. It's YOU who are clueless here.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#386 Feb 21, 2013
"Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints."

"Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible."

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

Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#387 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G, what sort of experiments do you want?

I could link a very simple experiment that demonstrates quite dramatically that CO2 does absorb heat. Would that help?

The Greenhouse effect was verified more than 100 years ago. The Earth would not be livable without it right now. Do you think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what we will have done very soon, would not increase the temperature of the surface?

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#388 Feb 21, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know what "experiment that creationists demand", Fair Game would might know.
There are no experiments on man made greenhouse gases showing any climate change.
New tactic?
You've repeated this statement twice now.
I simply stumble over the data, be it old small scale studies, computermodels, fieldstudies, laboratory experiments and studies on parts of the ocean that you can glue together (so to say) to create the full picture.
Apart from global data by IPCC NOOA, as was mentioned and ignored by you.
The ocean would be our greatest storage tank.
Simply google: CO2 effects on wind and rain.
Water get's acidic by a.o. CO2, it can only contain that much.
Wind is driven by precipitation and above water get's gas exchange going so bringing even more CO2 in the air. Winds of later have been getting more severe as well as precipitation in some places and draughts in others.
This CO2 again is deposited on soil.
This one is a good one for Shubees home teaching:
http://www.chemistry.wustl.edu/~edudev/LabTut...

http://www.google.nl/search...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#389 Feb 21, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
"Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints."
"Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...
Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.
Brians arguement (If any;p. Brian, are you paid per view or per post?) simply comes down to the statement: it's to big for humans to handle, therefore it does not exist.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#390 Feb 21, 2013
Subduction Zone wrote:
Brian_G, what sort of experiments do you want?
I could link a very simple experiment that demonstrates quite dramatically that CO2 does absorb heat. Would that help?
The Greenhouse effect was verified more than 100 years ago. The Earth would not be livable without it right now. Do you think that doubling the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, which is what we will have done very soon, would not increase the temperature of the surface?
So reducing the temperature would reduce emissions.
Came across those ones too.

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#391 Feb 21, 2013
http://co2now.org/Know-the-Changing-Climate/C...
IPCC FAQ

above post i meant emission gasses are reduced by lowering the temperature of the processes that cause them.

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#392 Feb 21, 2013
Here is a very short video that demonstrates the heat absorbing power of CO2 gas. Only 1:20 long:

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#393 Feb 21, 2013
One point about AGW. A little warming would be good for the human population as a whole. It would make more of the Earth inhabitable and as MAAT's last link shows increase rainfall. Of course there will be negative effects too. It will not be long before there are too many negative effects for too few positive effects.

“CO2 is Gaseous Love”

Since: Dec 08

Home, sweet home.

#394 Feb 22, 2013
Fair Game wrote:
"Of course, there are not multiple Earths, which would allow an experimenter to change one factor at a time on each Earth, thus helping to isolate different fingerprints."
"Unequivocal attribution would require controlled experiments with multiple copies of the climate system, which is not possible."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attribution_of_r...
Science is not going to give brian his planet duplicator ray, or turn an amoeba into a frog for the creationists.
Fair Game doesn't understand single subject experimental paradigms, where one factor is changed randomly over time to see if a climate signal can be detected through the noise. He thinks, if he gets a rare disease, his doctors would need to clone him before they could treat an unknown illness.

That's what you get when you rely on wikipedia for your science.
SpaceBlues

United States

#395 Feb 22, 2013
Our future is melting before our very eyes.

Fiddling With The Data While The World Burns

Geochemist James Lawrence Powell recently conducted an exhaustive study of the peer-reviewed literature on climate science. Going back over 20 years, his search yielded 13,950 scientific papers. Of these, only 24 “clearly rejected global warming or endorsed a cause other than carbon dioxide emissions for the observed warming of 0.8 degrees since the beginning of the industrial era.”

Powell said:


Only one conclusion is possible: within science, global warming denial has virtually no influence. Its influence is instead on a misguided media, politicians all-too-willing to deny science for their own gain, and a gullible public.

Adding:


Scientists do not disagree about human-caused global warming. It is the ruling paradigm of climate science, in the same way that plate tectonics is the ruling paradigm of geology. We know that continents move. We know that the earth is warming and that human emissions of greenhouse gases are the primary cause.

Since: Apr 08

"the green troll"

#396 Feb 22, 2013
Brian_G wrote:
<quoted text>Fair Game doesn't understand single subject experimental paradigms, where one factor is changed randomly over time to see if a climate signal can be detected through the noise. He thinks, if he gets a rare disease, his doctors would need to clone him before they could treat an unknown illness.
That's what you get when you rely on wikipedia for your science.
I think we've been there, troll.
Brian_G wrote:
Why not use a single subject experimental design?
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
Because it's a design for psychology experiments?
But go on, please tell us how you would apply that design to climatology.
Brian_G wrote:
Let's assume variable A affects climate. A single subject climate experiment would exert variable A, exert variable not A and where possible exert variable anti-A in a random pattern while measuring climate. If a series of climate changes were found that corresponds the exerting variable A; we would have evidence variable A changes climate.
Fair Game wrote:
<quoted text>
In other words, continue pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and see what happens, which just happens to be your agenda anyway.
http://www.topix.com/forum/city/allentown-pa/...

““You must not lose faith ”

Since: Jun 11

Location hidden

#397 Feb 22, 2013
0.8 degree centrigrade indeed.
Half of what we need for collapse, that will take about 300 years to self-repair without human influence.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm...
400,000 year old permafrost thawing in Siberian caves.

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.

Al Gore Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 2 min Into The Night 62,938
News Inside the Beltway: Federal workers have Trump ... 1 hr He Named Me Black... 5
News As Trump takes the oath, many voters still can'... 3 hr Bow Down 1
News Why Joe Biden was a most unusual - and effectiv... Thu Le Jimbo 5
News Trump meets with Princeton physicist who says g... Jan 17 WarmerIsBetter Th... 6
News Trump bounces into the lead Jan 6 Go Blue Forever 399
News Fired from 'Apprentice,' Omarosa may get Trump ... Jan 6 ICE 10
More from around the web