Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[auditor0007]

Does anyone here on the left ever question the data?

There really isn't anything to question. Temperatures are on the rise. Is it all due to humans burning fossil fuels? That I have no idea, although it does seem that the burning of fossil fuels most likely has played at least some part in all of this.

My problem with the whole thing is that no matter what we do in the US, we're not going to change things significantly with countries like China burning away more and more fossil fuels. So, what do we do from here? I don't know, but denying it is happening really is kind of silly.

 

[pjnlsn]

We will try to insult you more often...

sorry!!!

The important thing, I should think, is the issue, or what is true and what is not. For example, the thread is about that which is called 'climate science,' or science involving the interactions of animals, plants, the atmosphere and the earth itself, specifically over long periods of time, past or future and probably including the present.

And that you dislike anyone in particular is irrelevant to whether or not something is true about the world.

 

[ScienceRocks]

All the BS Pub propaganda of the last 25 years has been thoroughly discredited, dupes. Sorry about science, democracy, and real information. It COULDN'T last...

When you look at a graph that flaten out. What do you expect?

The question is why?

 

[Obamanation]

We will try to insult you more often...

sorry!!!

The important thing, I should think, is the issue, or what is true and what is not. For example, the thread is about that which is called 'climate science,' or science involving the interactions of animals, plants, the atmosphere and the earth itself, specifically over long periods of time, past or future and probably including the present.

And that you dislike anyone in particular is irrelevant to whether or not something is true about the world.

Who said I dislike anyone?

...and, I'm sorry for not posting on topic but "Global Warming", which now his been minimalized, in an attempt to save face by the left, to "Climate Change" --- well, It doesn't really deserve our attention.

But this one I welcome in schools. I always found it funny how scientists used to tell the kids the earth was flat. It helps all people to understand that science is ALWAYS a little bit behind reality. Always learning more, but never quite right...

 

[ABikerSailor]

We will try to insult you more often...

sorry!!!

The important thing, I should think, is the issue, or what is true and what is not. For example, the thread is about that which is called 'climate science,' or science involving the interactions of animals, plants, the atmosphere and the earth itself, specifically over long periods of time, past or future and probably including the present.

And that you dislike anyone in particular is irrelevant to whether or not something is true about the world.

Who said I dislike anyone?

...and, I'm sorry for not posting on topic but "Global Warming", which now his been minimalized, in an attempt to save face by the left, to "Climate Change" --- well, It doesn't really deserve our attention.

But this one I welcome in schools. I always found it funny how scientists used to tell the kids the earth was flat. It helps all people to understand that science is ALWAYS a little bit behind reality. Always learning more, but never quite right...

Scientists used to tell the kids the earth was flat? Really? I thought they stopped that in the 1500's.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Does anyone here on the left ever question the data?

There really isn't anything to question. Temperatures are on the rise. Is it all due to humans burning fossil fuels? That I have no idea, although it does seem that the burning of fossil fuels most likely has played at least some part in all of this.

My problem with the whole thing is that no matter what we do in the US, we're not going to change things significantly with countries like China burning away more and more fossil fuels. So, what do we do from here? I don't know, but denying it is happening really is kind of silly.

I looked at graphs from many parts of the globe...I'm not too sure. You make a very good point about china and I believe if they're right=not good.

 

[Obamanation]

Scientists also use to tell us these things...

1) The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
2) The Atom Is the Smallest Particle in Existence
3) Rain Follows the Plow --- REALLY!!!
4) Phlogiston is the stuff in stuff that makes it flamable... you remember!
5) Heavier Objects Fall Faster
6) Alchemy - Love it! Water to wine and lead to gold (Obama might even back off taxes if he could do that - eh, who am I kidding!!)

 

[JoeB131]

Yes you did. You called the U.S. the biggest polluter based solely on it's output of greenhouse gases.

Please point out where I said "pollutor".

I said "Worst offender" and "biggest Emitter", both of which are true.

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

I didn't imply, you inferred.

The point is, we are throwing the most CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the world- 24% of them for only 5% of the world's population.

Since CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and since greenhouse gases cause global warming, we are the biggest offender.

 

[Gadawg73]

Go to the NASA site and see the graph that skyrockets straight up on CO2 emissions.

 

[Old Rocks]

Scientists also use to tell us these things...

1) The Earth Is the Center of the Universe
2) The Atom Is the Smallest Particle in Existence
3) Rain Follows the Plow --- REALLY!!!
4) Phlogiston is the stuff in stuff that makes it flamable... you remember!
5) Heavier Objects Fall Faster
6) Alchemy - Love it! Water to wine and lead to gold (Obama might even back off taxes if he could do that - eh, who am I kidding!!)

Fellow, you really need to study the history of science. Science, as we know it today, did not exist until the last couple of hundred years. Until the scientific method was formalized, these people were call natural philosophers.

The earth being flat, and the center of the universe were church doctrines, not those of natural philosophers. Eratothenes measured the circumferance of the earth in 240 BC.

As far as that other stuff is concerned, it was scientists that did the investigating that demonstrated the true nature of each.

The AGW Theory, Theory in the scientific sense, not the common interpretation of theory, is based on firm scientific ground. GHGs such as CO2 and CH4 absorb energy in the longwave infrared that the ground emits after being warmed by the sun. This was first measured and demonstrated by Tyndall in 1858. In 1896, Arrhenius, a Noble Prize winning Swedish chemist, first quantified what doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere would mean in terms of temperature. His estimates were quite close to those of the scientists of today.

Since then, both the measurements of the absorption spectra of the GHGs, and the effects of increasing the amounts of them in the atmosphere have been refined by many researchers in many nations. No one has falsified the basic premis of AGW in any way.

Now we are seeing the very rapid retreat of glaciers worldwide, the melt of the Arctic Sea Ice, to the point that the Arctic Ocean may be ice free for part of the summer by 2020, and the melting of the Greenland Ice Cap. Our weather is also reflecting a warmer world, with extreme weather events happening much more frequently. These are all real time observations, not computer models.

If there is scientific error on the part of the scientists concerning global warming, it is that they have been far too conservative in their time estimates concerning the effects. In 2000, they were predicting the Artic Sea Ice would be melted completely for part of the summer by 2100. And were being called alarmist for that prediction. By the present melt rate, it is almost certain that this will occur by 2020, if not sooner. The scientists were predicting that we would see a measurable increase in the frequency of extreme weather events by 2050. Swiss Re and Munich Re both state that the freqency of extreme weather events has increased by a factor of two to four in the last decade.

These are the facts, kids. The reality of what is happening right now. You can deny it, and live in your alternative universe, if you like. But it will not change what is happening by one whit, and will put your family and community in danger from your willfull ignorance.

 

[Old Rocks]

Please point out where I said "pollutor".

I said "Worst offender" and "biggest Emitter", both of which are true.

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

I didn't imply, you inferred.

The point is, we are throwing the most CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the world- 24% of them for only 5% of the world's population.

Since CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and since greenhouse gases cause global warming, we are the biggest offender.

Actually, China is at present the biggest offender. However, we own the largest share of the anthropogenic CO2 that is presently in the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

This is getting comical. One failure after another in making the case for global warming.

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

Fine, discuss the possibilities, but don't go teaching it as absolute fact in our schools unless you can prove it, and present both sides of the argument without hiding evidence that doesn't support your argument.

Nobody is hiding evidence. You fruitloops really need to research a scientific issue before you post on it. The idea that constituants of the atmosphere have the ability to absorb heat goes back to Fourier in the 1820's. The whole of the AGW Global Warming Theory is based on rock solid evidence.

There is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, nor a single major University that does not state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. That statement applies worldwide. So what you are positing is that there is a worldwide conspriracy among scientists from the differant nations and political systems of the world to mislead all of the rest of us. Real tinfoil hat bullshit.

 

[Redfish]

You implied it. Stop trying to dance your way out of it, fuckface.

I didn't imply, you inferred.

The point is, we are throwing the most CO2 and other greenhouse gases in the world- 24% of them for only 5% of the world's population.

Since CO2 is a Greenhouse gas, and since greenhouse gases cause global warming, we are the biggest offender.

Actually, China is at present the biggest offender. However, we own the largest share of the anthropogenic CO2 that is presently in the atmosphere.

total horseshit! CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

Man is not changing the climate of the planet. Man may be polluting the planet, but not changing its climate

 

[Redfish]

There is no failure in 'making the case' for global warming since this isn't an argument that's debated in a courtroom with a jury deliberating in order to make a decision one way or the other.

This is a question of science evaluating the evidence and reaching conclusions based on that science.

There have been plenty of other scientific discoveries over the centuries that haven't met with widespread popular support at the time. Forget Darwin's theories for the time being. The Copernican Heliocentric solar system displaced the Ptolemaic system, but it certainly didn't meet with widespread support. In fact, there was widespread disbelief about it since the Church had religious reasons to dispute the theory. But the truth in such cases is not based on popular support or a lack of popular support.

The same was true when plate tectonics and continental drift was first postulated. But the idea of land (rock, actually) floating and moving as the crust of the planet moved in a dynamic system was first met with widespread disbelief if not downright mockery. It didn't change the truth of it, and the theory was finally given added weight as the evidence of sonar mapping of the ocean floor showed seafloor spreading.

Fine, discuss the possibilities, but don't go teaching it as absolute fact in our schools unless you can prove it, and present both sides of the argument without hiding evidence that doesn't support your argument.

Nobody is hiding evidence. You fruitloops really need to research a scientific issue before you post on it. The idea that constituants of the atmosphere have the ability to absorb heat goes back to Fourier in the 1820's. The whole of the AGW Global Warming Theory is based on rock solid evidence.

There is not a single Scientific Society, not a single National Academy of Science, nor a single major University that does not state that AGW is a fact, and a clear and present danger. That statement applies worldwide. So what you are positing is that there is a worldwide conspriracy among scientists from the differant nations and political systems of the world to mislead all of the rest of us. Real tinfoil hat bullshit.

water vapor is the biggest culprit in absorbing heat. Should we ban water and label it a pollutant? Should we start a crusade to destroy clouds?

You warmers are totally

 

[Saigon]

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Katzndogz]

The left believes that global warming causes asteroids. They will reject any "science" that contradicts their myths.

 

[Redfish]

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you do realize that anyone can put something in wiki don't you? It is not a reliable source of scientific data. But if that cite is true, why hasn't plant life flourished in places that put out a lot of CO2? Using your logic, china should be the best place on earth to grow crops because of the high CO2 levels.

 

[Redfish]

Destruction of forests is the much more likely cause of any rise in CO2 because there are fewer trees and plants to absorb the CO2 from the atmosphere.

But whether its .039% or .042%, CO2 remains a tiny fraction of our atmosphere, it is a natural occuring gas and without it there would be no plant life and consequently no human life.

funny how libtards want to demonize that which makes their lives possible.

 

[konradv]

CO2 makes up .039% of the atmosphere today. In 500,000 BC it made up .039% of the atmosphere.

The concentration of carbon dioxide (CO2) in Earth's atmosphere has reached 391 ppm (parts per million) as of October 2012 and rose by 2.0 ppm/yr during 2000–2009 and faster since then. This current concentration is substantially higher than the 280 ppm concentration present in pre-industrial times, with the increase largely attributed to anthropogenic sources.

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

you do realize that anyone can put something in wiki don't you? It is not a reliable source of scientific data. But if that cite is true, why hasn't plant life flourished in places that put out a lot of CO2? Using your logic, china should be the best place on earth to grow crops because of the high CO2 levels.

That's a lame excuse. The Wiki articles are cited. If you've got problem, it's with those cites. Wiki in and of itself is only as good as its sources. Simply shrugging off the whole site is laziness.

 

[JoeNormal]

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.

Like what? American history?