Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[Little-Acorn]

This is the problem with Conservatives these days... their "faith" can't be assailed by facts. Even ones they can see right out the window.

Using your very own "logic", I've already proven that you, Joe, are personally responsible for Global Whatever.

You're not telling me that your own logic was WRONG, are you?

 

[bripat9643]

[


No one is arguing that CO2 hasn't increased. The question is, what is the effect of this increase? The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is small to begin with, so even doubling it still leaves CO2 as a very small percentage of the atmosphere. You and all the other cult members assume that some X% increase in CO2 will cause some Y% increase in the global temperature. However, so far, all the equations that have been offered up to this point have failed miserably to predict future temperatures. AGW nutburgers like to believe the effect is 100 times greater than it probably is. Their Chicken Little scenarios also depend on the atmosphere exhibiting a positive feedback loop. However, all the evidence indicates that the atmosphere dampens the effects of CO2.

SO you see, it's not as simple as saying that spitting in the ocean causes coastal flooding, but that is what you are your ilk are trying to put over on us.

Jesus ******* Christ, man, you don't think that 7 billion humans aren't putting more CO2 in the air than has ever happened up to this point.

The effect is what we are seeing now- melting glaciers, rising sea levels, and so on.

This is the problem with Conservatives these days... their "faith" can't be assailed by facts. Even ones they can see right out the window.

The AGW cultists have yet to prove that man's activities are causing the climate to warm. Your belief is the result of faith. So who are you to talk about conservatives? Skepticism is the opposite of faith.

 

[bripat9643]

The climate scientists are all on the government payroll. They were selected to produce the results the lifer government bureaucrats desire.

I don't have to produce jack. AGW cultists like you have to prove your case. So far all you've produced is a joke.

You can't possibly believe this, BriPat, because it so obviously not true.

In fact, not only is it obviously not true, I've proven on this thread a dozen times that it is impossible because European universities are funded in such a way that such fraud is impossible.

So why are you posting it?

ROFL! In this country the government funds the research that university faculty perform, not the university. Government bureaucrats decide who gets funding, not the university. I suspect its the same way in Europe. That's certainly the way the Hadley CRU is funded. In fact, some of the funding for Hadley came from the U.S. federal government.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Just watch al gores science fiction expose on global warming.......thats all youll ever need to know. Oh, and ehrlichs popuation bomb......... just for laughs

 

[Crackerjaxon]

Well our kids are taught more than enough stuff that's either untrue, useless or both so one more things can't hurt

So little of what schools teach now is actually factual.

Well, there's nothing wrong with what people call climate science. It's just that like the topic of the origins of our species, people who need it to be false will create a version of it that can be refuted, or ridiculed, and insist their version of it is what it actually is.

Single cell animals magically appear given the right environment and promptly go about the business of evolving into human beings.

Yeah, that's it.

Who could doubt that?

 

[Mustang]

Why is the far right so opposed to education? Why do they hate their kids?

The easiest way to assure that someone's kids will continue to believe what the parents believe (and taught them) is to restrict their children's access to information and knowledge which, by definition, calls into question the absolute nature of their parents' beliefs.

Stated another way, parents often try to keep their children ignorant because other ideas, concepts, and knowledge represents a threat to their control.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Climate Change is real, regardless of what's causing it. **** off neo-con.

As it has always been. Staggering observation. Lol

 

[LogikAndReazon]

[The burden of proof is on you, and you haven't met that burden. The Bible has nothing to do with it, but I understand that's your way of distracting from the fact that you fail to make your case for global warming.

No, guy, the fact that Glaciers are retreating, that summers are warmer and winters are shorter, sea levels are rising... that's the proof.

But you see, you've been conditioned to believe whatever big corporations tell you. Once AGW starts threatening their profits, you'll be told to believe something else.

BIG corps, BIG oil, BIG pharma, BIG banks...........Its all just sooooooo frighteningly BIG !!!!!

 

[S.J.]

The tip-off to the global warming hoax is their proposed solutions, which are to make the U.S. pay. Pass laws that only apply to us, that just happen to reflect liberal ideology. I've heard some of the Hollywood climate wackos claim cow farts contributed to global warming and we could stop it by becoming vegetarians. Democratic politicians espouse those views to get those Hollywood big bucks. The earth may be getting slightly warmer, but if they really believed it was man's behavior causing it, they would be going after the other industrialized countries instead of the U.S. (which has the toughest environmental laws of all the industrialized countries), but they don't. They leave the worst offenders alone. That's where they lose their credibility, and that's where they give themselves away, IMO.

 

[Mustang]

The tip-off to the global warming hoax is their proposed solutions, which are to make the U.S. pay. Pass laws that only apply to us, that just happen to reflect liberal ideology. I've heard some of the Hollywood climate wackos claim cow farts contributed to global warming and we could stop it by becoming vegetarians. Democratic politicians espouse those views to get those Hollywood big bucks. The earth may be getting slightly warmer, but if they really believed it was man's behavior causing it, they would be going after the other industrialized countries instead of the U.S. (which has the toughest environmental laws of all the industrialized countries), but they don't. They leave the worst offenders alone. That's where they lose their credibility, and that's where they give themselves away, IMO.

IMO is the only thing you stated that has any relevance.

1. Just because person A makes one or two essentially ignorant statements in support of climate change by possibly overstating some issue regardiing cow flatulence (methane CH4 IS a very potent global warming gas, no pun intended) doesn't, in and of itself, discount or discredit the theory. If that was true, then EVERY theory ever postulated would have to be tossed out since people say stupid things all the time.

2. Do you have ANY idea how difficult it is to get numerous countries (last time I checked, there were 192 countries in the world) to come to an agreement about restricting carbon emissions when each country has their own individual agenda AND each country also tends to have a myopic view of how everyone else expects them to make a larger proportional sacrifice than their particular contribution to the problem? We can't even get Republicans and Democrats to agree, and they're BOTH American.

My take on it is that everyone is probably going to tinker around the margins for years until such time as events make it clear that we've been screwing around for far too long while the carbon levels kept inching ever upward toward a tipping point that we may no longer be able to prevent from being passed no matter what we do or how hard we try.

If we ever get to that point (let's say 30 years from now although every time estimate made up to this point has underestimated the speed of the warming trend), then we will have reached a point where survival of the fittest will likely take over. That will almost certainly mean natural resource wars -- wars for food, water, arable land, etc. I wouldn't want to be around in those days since the instinct for survival will drive people to do far more desperate things than simple power and greed ever would.

 

[pjnlsn]

So little of what schools teach now is actually factual.

Well, there's nothing wrong with what people call climate science. It's just that like the topic of the origins of our species, people who need it to be false will create a version of it that can be refuted, or ridiculed, and insist their version of it is what it actually is.

Single cell animals magically appear given the right environment and promptly go about the business of evolving into human beings.

Yeah, that's it.

Who could doubt that?

That you've developed some idea of the kind of person you dislike, and attached to it claims involving both certain aspects of biology and what is called climate science, does not mean either are false.

 

[pjnlsn]

[

The real question is: is there any evidence that will convince you Global Warming is bogus? Those who advance the claim have to support it, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Skeptics aren't required to disprove it.

Actual scientists who aren't on the payroll of the oil companies presenting real evidence, not loudmouths on Hate Radio, would convince me. Too bad you can't produce those.

The climate scientists are all on the government payroll. They were selected to produce the results the lifer government bureaucrats desire.

I don't have to produce jack. AGW cultists like you have to prove your case. So far all you've produced is a joke.

There's nothing wrong with what people call climate science, if indeed that's what you're talking about.

I'm not sure how I can make it any clearer that politics doesn't effect the state of reality, in and around this particular planet, or any molecular interactions in the atmosphere, the important thing being whether what is called 'climate science' is true or not, to speak simply.

 

[Saigon]

The tip-off to the global warming hoax is their proposed solutions, which are to make the U.S. pay. Pass laws that only apply to us, that just happen to reflect liberal ideology.

Which laws only apply to the US?

Who passes them?

 

[S.J.]

The tip-off to the global warming hoax is their proposed solutions, which are to make the U.S. pay. Pass laws that only apply to us, that just happen to reflect liberal ideology.

Which laws only apply to the US?

Who passes them?

Don't act like you don't know what I'm talking about.

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

I have no idea what you are talking about - and neither do you.

There is no body or organisation on earth that passes laws for the US to follow - except the US government.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

I have no idea what you are talking about - and neither do you.

There is no body or organisation on earth that passes laws for the US to follow - except the US government.

And that's what I'm talking about, the U.S. government. More specifically, the Democratic Party. I keep forgetting, you're not an American.

 

[Saigon]

S.J.

The US has looser, lighter laws on almost every aspect of environmental control than most western countries do. Laws in Europe are far tighter, and yet they attract few complaints because people largely understand the need for them.

California has some very tough laws on fuel emissions, I understand - but you can hardly blame the Democrats for that.

 

[S.J.]

S.J.

The US has looser, lighter laws on almost every aspect of environmental control than most western countries do. Laws in Europe are far tighter, and yet they attract few complaints because people largely understand the need for them.

California has some very tough laws on fuel emissions, I understand - but you can hardly blame the Democrats for that.

Wow! You really DON'T know American politics, do you? California is chronically liberal. Trust me, I live here. Even the Republicans are liberals in this state.

 

[Saigon]

S.J. -

Ah, ok, obviously I'm wrong. I had thought Arnie was the Governor and a Republican.

 

[S.J.]

S.J. -

Ah, ok, obviously I'm wrong. I had thought Arnie was the Governor and a Republican.

Arnie is a Republican like Colin Powell is a Republican, in name only.