Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[RDD_1210]

There are no consequences, and the consequences of following the prescription of the AGW cultists are far worse.

It's almost as if you're trying to be a troll. No one with half an ounce of common sense would say something like this with a straight face.

Many people have said it. All of them are a lot smarter than you or the typical AGW cult member.

People such as who?

 

[zeke]

It's almost as if you're trying to be a troll. No one with half an ounce of common sense would say something like this with a straight face.

Many people have said it. All of them are a lot smarter than you or the typical AGW cult member.

People such as who?[/QUOTE]


WHO??? You want to know who. I am so sorry. The right wingers can't share that information with you. It is classified. And they are waiting till the next election cycle to spring it on the world. That global warming is a hoax. That bit of news is sure to change the outcome of the next election. You just wait. They'll show the world. I mean, hell, bripatty has made his case that global warming is a man make hoax.

Why are you not convinced?

 

[ClosedCaption]

I cant believe their going to allow science in the classrooms...What is this? A Classroom?

 

[bripat9643]

It is the obligation of our k-12 educational system to present the best possible science we know.

It is NOT the obligation of k-12 education to present every opposing fringe scientific theory.

If those opposing theories became the mainstream scientific consensus, THEN they ought to be what is taught.

I have a wide variety of theories about US history that are NOT part of the commonly perceived views about history.

When I teach history I do NOT impose my radical theories about history on the kids.

When those kids are old enough (say in college) THAT IS THE PLACE where such contrarian POVs ought to be offered.

again, there's no "contrarian" issue here. 97% of Climate Scientists accept AGW as true.

You're probably referring to the "97% consensus" claim. It's a myth. Close examination of the source of the claimed 97% consensus reveals that it comes from a non-peer reviewed article describing an online poll in which a total of only 79 climate scientists chose to participate. Of the 79 self-selected climate scientists, 75 agreed with the notion of AGW. Thus, we find climate scientists once again using dubious statistical techniques to deceive the public that there is a 97% scientific consensus on man-made global warming; fortunately they clearly aren’t buying it.

Let’s not lose sight of what the Doran poll asked:

1. When compared with pre-1800s levels do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?

2. Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Of course, the answer to #1 is “risen”, if you consider “pre-1800″ to be around 1800 or a couple of hundred years of so before, because we were in the little age age, and there’s little doubt we have warmed since that time.

The answer to number #2 depends largely on the definition of significant. If man caused 10% of the rise in temperature since 1800, that would be 0.06 degrees. That would be "significant," but who would get excited about it?

And of course, warmers seem to treat a risen/yes reply to this poll as affirmation of catastrophic AGW projections, which may not be intended.

Even the Oil companies, who were responsible for much of the Denial Movement, have stopped denying it.

Oil company executives stick their finger in the wind and say whatever they think will get the politicians off their backs.

So here's what's really bothering you and other whacks on the right. That the education system is going to form people's opinions on this before Talk Radio and the oil companies can.

Yes, it bothers me that government schools are going to brainwash kids with ideas that are clearly wrong. I realize you aren't bothered by that. You are a liberal, after all.

 

[bripat9643]

It's almost as if you're trying to be a troll. No one with half an ounce of common sense would say something like this with a straight face.

Many people have said it. All of them are a lot smarter than you or the typical AGW cult member.

People such as who?

If I was debating an intelligent person, I might bother with a substantive response. However, considering the source, it's a waste of time.

 

[bripat9643]

WHO??? You want to know who. I am so sorry. The right wingers can't share that information with you. It is classified. And they are waiting till the next election cycle to spring it on the world. That global warming is a hoax. That bit of news is sure to change the outcome of the next election. You just wait. They'll show the world. I mean, hell, bripatty has made his case that global warming is a man make hoax.

Why are you not convinced?

You won the contest for biggest moron in the forum, zeke.

 

[Katzndogz]

Teaching global warming to children is nothing but faith based education. Global warming is a hoax, but teaching it is necessary to prepare students for a greatly reduced standard of living.

 

[RDD_1210]

Many people have said it. All of them are a lot smarter than you or the typical AGW cult member.

People such as who?

If I was debating an intelligent person, I might bother with a substantive response. However, considering the source, it's a waste of time.

Waste of time? You post close to 25 times per day every day for almost 2 years now and you are going to pretend that you have anything better to do? Ha!

Nice cop out. We both know I caught you lying out your ass again and this is the best response you could come up with? Sad.

 

[RDD_1210]

Teaching global warming to children is nothing but faith based education. Global warming is a hoax, but teaching it is necessary to prepare students for a greatly reduced standard of living.

I'll send you $10 if you post a picture of yourself. I am dying to know what bat shit insane looks like.

 

[bripat9643]

People such as who?

If I was debating an intelligent person, I might bother with a substantive response. However, considering the source, it's a waste of time.

Waste of time? You post close to 25 times per day every day for almost 2 years now and you are going to pretend that you have anything better to do? Ha!

Nice cop out. We both know I caught you lying out your ass again and this is the best response you could come up with? Sad.

I don't waste my time arguing with morons. I simply ridicule them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

WHO??? You want to know who. I am so sorry. The right wingers can't share that information with you. It is classified. And they are waiting till the next election cycle to spring it on the world. That global warming is a hoax. That bit of news is sure to change the outcome of the next election. You just wait. They'll show the world. I mean, hell, bripatty has made his case that global warming is a man make hoax.

Why are you not convinced?

LOL! You predicted it correct!

 

[RDD_1210]

If I was debating an intelligent person, I might bother with a substantive response. However, considering the source, it's a waste of time.

Waste of time? You post close to 25 times per day every day for almost 2 years now and you are going to pretend that you have anything better to do? Ha!

Nice cop out. We both know I caught you lying out your ass again and this is the best response you could come up with? Sad.

I don't waste my time arguing with morons. I simply ridicule them.

Good thing we weren't arguing. An argument would involve two sides making points. Since you don't have a point, the 'argument" was over before it ever began. You make this all too easy.

 

[bripat9643]

Waste of time? You post close to 25 times per day every day for almost 2 years now and you are going to pretend that you have anything better to do? Ha!

Nice cop out. We both know I caught you lying out your ass again and this is the best response you could come up with? Sad.

I don't waste my time arguing with morons. I simply ridicule them.

Good thing we weren't arguing. An argument would involve two sides making points. Since you don't have a point, the 'argument" was over before it ever began. You make this all too easy.

So far, you're only "point" is that I'm stupid. Then you expect some kind of substantive response from me.

You are right, the argument was over before it began. You never even attempted an argument.

 

[RDD_1210]

I don't waste my time arguing with morons. I simply ridicule them.

Good thing we weren't arguing. An argument would involve two sides making points. Since you don't have a point, the 'argument" was over before it ever began. You make this all too easy.

So far, you're only "point" is that I'm stupid. Then you expect some kind of substantive response from me.

You are right, the argument was over before it began. You never even attempted an argument.

My point wasn't that you're stupid. My point was that you're full of shit. You proved that when you refused to provide even one name of someone who supports the crap you said. Not one name! You proved my point for me when you attempted your lame cop out excuse as to why you couldn't provide even a single name.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

More reason to not let your children anywhere near public screwels.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I cant believe their going to allow science in the classrooms...What is this? A Classroom?

Uhm, it's junk science for the terminally gullible.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Bripatty will never reveal his super secret sources...ever

 

[ClosedCaption]

I cant believe their going to allow science in the classrooms...What is this? A Classroom?

Uhm, it's junk science for the terminally gullible.

Says you...Scientist say differently. Are you a scientist?

 

[bripat9643]

Good thing we weren't arguing. An argument would involve two sides making points. Since you don't have a point, the 'argument" was over before it ever began. You make this all too easy.

So far, you're only "point" is that I'm stupid. Then you expect some kind of substantive response from me.

You are right, the argument was over before it began. You never even attempted an argument.

My point wasn't that you're stupid. My point was that you're full of shit. You proved that when you refused to provide even one name of someone who supports the crap you said. Not one name! You proved my point for me when you attempted your lame cop out excuse as to why you couldn't provide even a single name.

I didn't prove anything of the sort. I simply declined to get into a mud wrestling contest with an idiot. Scientists who are skeptical of global warming are quite well known. Even someone as stupid as you can look them up. Furthermore, it's a point not worth contesting. That's why you are contesting it so vehemently. If you had any point other than ad hominems, you would have made them.

 

[Freewill]

So let's have some reality here, no one can say our school system works well for the majority of the children. And it isn't because we have not thrown enough money at the school system, just give up that fallacy. We also know that it has be left wing liberals who have been running the failing school systems. So, what we are going to do is double down on stupid and instead of teaching kids how to read and write let's teach them something they have absolutely no control over but it is something we can get them to fear. Something to fear that can be used to demonstrate how only the government can save us from our own demise. How corporations, that feed our children in many different ways, is evil only the government is good. BS teach the kids the three Rs and let them read books to figure out the rest. That said I have no problem with teaching kids that the weather within a climate changes as it has from the beginning of the world. But if it is nothing more then the religion of the GW fearist, that I have a problem.

As for the creation/evolution debate. I get so damn tired of the liberal left bring this issue up as if it means a hill of beans. The truth is that the liberal left wing has no real explanation of how life started on Earth. Yes, most of the "thinkers" on the left will snidely say, evolution explains it all, when in fact the evolutionary theory does nothing of the sort, they are showing they are low information voters. Evolution is a dead end in explaining creation of life. So what theory actually makes the most sense? Panspermia? Transpermia? "primordial soup" ? Was at the beginning? Take your choice, at this time and date all valid.