Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[JoeNormal]

Are you really that fucking stupid? Scientists are PEOPLE you dumbass. They are no more ethical (though they should be) than any other population group. And for your information there are plenty of scientists who are no more than educated idiots. They may have a PhD behind their name but they couldn't hold a real job in a million years. They are basically incompetent in anything save the insulated world of academia.

I've had to deal with way too many of those. What a complete pain in the ass.

Spoken like an uneducated imbecile.

Would that it were true. I could go through life blind and blissfully ignorant such as yourself. Sadly I am very well educated and far from an imbecile. That's why statements like yours so offend me. I live in the real world...unlike you.

It sounds like you're saying that Mother Teresa and the guy down at the local used car lot are on the same ethical plane because they're both people.

Credentials exist for a reason. Once somebody goes through the considerable hell it takes to earn a PhD, the argument should be over that they'll make stupid mistakes in logic or fail to take into account the issues that average people consider themselves clever enough to consider. From that basis, the minutiae can be dismissed and a real discussion of the merits of particular research can begin. Cons generally don't want to do that though. They want to take every argument from ground zero and discuss stupid shit over and over until any deeper meaning is thoroughly lost.

 

[Old Rocks]

Joint science academies’ statement:
Global response to climate change

http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

Reduce the causes of climate change

The scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action. It is vital that all nations identify cost-effective steps that they can take now, to contribute to substantial and long-term reduction in net global greenhouse gas emissions. Action taken now to reduce significantly the build-up of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will lessen the magnitude and rate of climate change. As the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) recognises, a lack of full scientific certainty about some aspects of climate change is not a reason for
delaying an immediate response that will, at a reasonable cost, prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

when i say 'conservative' i really mean the 'Tea Party' too....the GOP has way too many 'moderates' and 'rinos'....accomodating representatives who compromise our principles to 'get along' with the Left....thus moving 'conservatism' toward the bastardized version we see today so much...like in the countries you mention...
.

Within a global perspective, the Tea Party is in no way definining of conservatism. If anything, it's a bit of a dinosaur - and the policy on climate change is defining of that.

I'm not saying that is good or bad, but if aliens landed and wanted an example of where conservative politics are at, I think the UK and Germany are much more typical and middle-of-the-road examples. Both tend to be very fiscally conservative, but more liberal socially.


Really the key element here is that many posters who sit to the right of the Tea Party see anything left of the Tea Party as being left wing. In fact, most conservatives around the world are left of the Tea Party, closer to the moderate wing of the Republicans.

This completely explains why a half dozen posters here look at climate science and see only left wing conspiracy, because from an extreme position ANYTHING is going to look left wing after a while. It's a very distorted view of the world - just as the view of the extreme left is.

the 'tea party' is just a bunch of concerned Americans from both sides of the aisle (and there are lots of us) who want to conserve our American values (however it has been redefined and slimed by the left wing media)....

are you American or not....? if not i can see where you don't really understand...and why you think of 'conservatives' in a different light...

environmental politics has an agenda.....it is an activist movement that seeks to transform world values and world structures of society.....

...and much of it is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and our freedoms here in America.....THAT is why we look at things from a different point of view....and why we expose frauds like Al Gore....the IPCC 'hockey stick' fraud...and threats like Agenda 21....and why we don't want this biased 'green' propaganda in our childrens' classrooms....

 

[thereisnospoon]

when i say 'conservative' i really mean the 'Tea Party' too....the GOP has way too many 'moderates' and 'rinos'....accomodating representatives who compromise our principles to 'get along' with the Left....thus moving 'conservatism' toward the bastardized version we see today so much...like in the countries you mention...
.

Within a global perspective, the Tea Party is in no way definining of conservatism. If anything, it's a bit of a dinosaur - and the policy on climate change is defining of that.

I'm not saying that is good or bad, but if aliens landed and wanted an example of where conservative politics are at, I think the UK and Germany are much more typical and middle-of-the-road examples. Both tend to be very fiscally conservative, but more liberal socially.


Really the key element here is that many posters who sit to the right of the Tea Party see anything left of the Tea Party as being left wing. In fact, most conservatives around the world are left of the Tea Party, closer to the moderate wing of the Republicans.

This completely explains why a half dozen posters here look at climate science and see only left wing conspiracy, because from an extreme position ANYTHING is going to look left wing after a while. It's a very distorted view of the world - just as the view of the extreme left is.

 

[S.J.]

Saigon doesn't understand Americans. "Conservatism" to him is not the same as it is to us. His view of the U.S. is shaped by liberals and atheists. To him, mediocrity is excellence, and he will never understand what true conservatism is, or what it's like to excel. I pity the fool.

 

[Dubya]

Your brain is just too small to get it. Temperature isn't radiative forcing and all greenhouse gases are. That means they are just like the sun or lack of sun, aeorsols or lack of aerosols, clouds or lack of clouds and albedo changes that reflect or absorb sunlight. The sun is measured in solar irradiance and they average the measurements for different areas, because the sunlight hits at different angles and for day and night, because all the Earth isn't getting sunlight. The amount of sunlight entering the planet has a certain amount of radiative forcing as it changes with Milankovitch Cycles.

Temperature rises comes from anything that increases radiative forcing. If you clean the aerosols from the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise. If the Earth reflects less sunlight, the temperature will rise. If you increase greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will give off more back radiation and the temperature will rise. If you do the opposite, the temperature will decline. There is nothing complicated about that and it isn't theory. There is no theory adding greenhouse gases will cause a planet to warm or decreasing them will cause a planet to cool. It isn't a theory, because it's a fact, you fucking fool! Scientists can put the gases in a container, shine light through them and measure the results, which are the same everytime for the same atmospheric conditions. The background radiation from greenhouse gases is nearly twice the direct sunlight, so it's like having a planet with three suns and no greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases Earth would be a very cold place. The heat from just our sun would quickly escape into space. It isn't just climate science that believes that, all science does, such as astrophysics. Your bullshit claims against greenhouse gases have no place in science, it's like claiming the Earth is flat.

While you are on the internet playing bullshit games, there are obvious signs of a planet warming. The days are ticking away for the arctic sea ice, so who is going to believe your bullshit once it's gone and Greenland is rapidly melting? There is so much evidence of warming that the only logical conclusion is deniers are liars.

blah blah...greenhouse effect.....blah blah....

...but you are still not proving that man-made GH gases are responsible for increased global surface temperature.....

Unfortunately, CO2 molecules don't come with any identifying codes regarding their origin.

Actually, they do. CO2 from fossil fuels have a different isotope ratio.

 

[Dubya]

no lag....? well i guess all those ice cores and scientists are wrong and you are right.....

global temperature has risen many times over thousands of years and there was no known greenhouse cause...or can you prove otherwise....?

all you are really saying is that co2 makes it hotter during the day.....that's a far cry from proving that co2 is the main cause of global warming....

for all we know it could be due to solar activity.....ocean climate cycles.....cloud cover.....underground nuke blasting......and the list goes on....

however BIG G wants you to believe the world is doomed unless you pay 'carbon taxes'....and far too many have jumped on the gravy train....

Your brain is just too small to get it. Temperature isn't radiative forcing and all greenhouse gases are. That means they are just like the sun or lack of sun, aeorsols or lack of aerosols, clouds or lack of clouds and albedo changes that reflect or absorb sunlight. The sun is measured in solar irradiance and they average the measurements for different areas, because the sunlight hits at different angles and for day and night, because all the Earth isn't getting sunlight. The amount of sunlight entering the planet has a certain amount of radiative forcing as it changes with Milankovitch Cycles.

Temperature rises comes from anything that increases radiative forcing. If you clean the aerosols from the atmosphere, the temperature of the Earth's surface will rise. If the Earth reflects less sunlight, the temperature will rise. If you increase greenhouse gases, the atmosphere will give off more back radiation and the temperature will rise. If you do the opposite, the temperature will decline. There is nothing complicated about that and it isn't theory. There is no theory adding greenhouse gases will cause a planet to warm or decreasing them will cause a planet to cool. It isn't a theory, because it's a fact, you fucking fool! Scientists can put the gases in a container, shine light through them and measure the results, which are the same everytime for the same atmospheric conditions. The background radiation from greenhouse gases is nearly twice the direct sunlight, so it's like having a planet with three suns and no greenhouse gases. Without greenhouse gases Earth would be a very cold place. The heat from just our sun would quickly escape into space. It isn't just climate science that believes that, all science does, such as astrophysics. Your bullshit claims against greenhouse gases have no place in science, it's like claiming the Earth is flat.

While you are on the internet playing bullshit games, there are obvious signs of a planet warming. The days are ticking away for the arctic sea ice, so who is going to believe your bullshit once it's gone and Greenland is rapidly melting? There is so much evidence of warming that the only logical conclusion is deniers are liars.

blah blah...greenhouse effect.....blah blah....

...but you are still not proving that man-made GH gases are responsible for increased global surface temperature.....

It's been proven since the '80s. Temperatures went up and stayed up, but that doesn't stop fools claiming they didn't. They examined everything that causes radiative forcing and only increases in greenhouse gases were making things warmer. The aerosols from pollution were making it cooler and masking the warming.

 

[Mustang]

when i say 'conservative' i really mean the 'Tea Party' too....the GOP has way too many 'moderates' and 'rinos'....accomodating representatives who compromise our principles to 'get along' with the Left....thus moving 'conservatism' toward the bastardized version we see today so much...like in the countries you mention...
.

Within a global perspective, the Tea Party is in no way definining of conservatism. If anything, it's a bit of a dinosaur - and the policy on climate change is defining of that.

I'm not saying that is good or bad, but if aliens landed and wanted an example of where conservative politics are at, I think the UK and Germany are much more typical and middle-of-the-road examples. Both tend to be very fiscally conservative, but more liberal socially.


Really the key element here is that many posters who sit to the right of the Tea Party see anything left of the Tea Party as being left wing. In fact, most conservatives around the world are left of the Tea Party, closer to the moderate wing of the Republicans.

This completely explains why a half dozen posters here look at climate science and see only left wing conspiracy, because from an extreme position ANYTHING is going to look left wing after a while. It's a very distorted view of the world - just as the view of the extreme left is.

the 'tea party' is just a bunch of concerned Americans from both sides of the aisle (and there are lots of us) who want to conserve our American values (however it has been redefined and slimed by the left wing media)....

are you American or not....? if not i can see where you don't really understand...and why you think of 'conservatives' in a different light...

environmental politics has an agenda.....it is an activist movement that seeks to transform world values and world structures of society.....

...and much of it is diametrically opposed to our Constitution and our freedoms here in America.....THAT is why we look at things from a different point of view....and why we expose frauds like Al Gore....the IPCC 'hockey stick' fraud...and threats like Agenda 21....and why we don't want this biased 'green' propaganda in our childrens' classrooms....

Yeah, environmental politics (policy) has an agenda. It's to prevent environmental degradation and to clean up the environment in which we live and to which we are dependent for our continued collective survival. That would make us at least as smart as an animal inhabiting a burrow since even an animal is smart enough not to foul his own living environment. (Translation: they don't crap in their own homes)

 

[nodoginnafight]

Don't need none of that fancy book larnin'
evathang I need to know, FOX tells me ...

 

[pjnlsn]

Oh but they are. In the climate issue, it's nothing but politics.
Look at the proposals elicited by those supporting the theory of man made climate change.
All proposals contain some sort of penalty. Whether they be additional taxation, more government oversight on the business of individuals, more draconian regulations on commerce.

One's political views have no effect on the validity of any aspect of any scientific work. To think so is, if I might make a personal statement, is ridiculously self-serving. And as a note, very little of the above is even about what is termed climate science, and more about what one reads in the news, and about politicians and politics, which again is not relevant.

The government could exist entirely to only do what you, he who goes by the handle 'thereisnospoon,' want and it still wouldn't mean that the world would have or would not have a certain characteristic, or a certain nature.

You want to translate that psycho-babble into English?

There's nothing overly confusing about what was written.

 

[pjnlsn]

and why we don't want this biased 'green' propaganda in our childrens' classrooms....

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

The point being that what might become a part of standard curricula is what is justified scientifically, whatever some people are driven to associate with the actual science and which need not be equivalent.

And, indeed, while Al Gore, or whatever politician, doesn't, as far as I know, display a particularly keen understanding of the various relevant data, along with the accompanying physics, the essence of what they're all saying is more right than wrong.

For no one here who has a particularly fervent dislike of these ideas seems to merely be concerned by a lack of pedanticism; It seems to run...deeper.

 

[bripat9643]

You dumb fuck, the reason they became scientists in the first place is because they have more intelligence and integrity than the average person.

Are you really that fucking stupid? Scientists are PEOPLE you dumbass. They are no more ethical (though they should be) than any other population group. And for your information there are plenty of scientists who are no more than educated idiots. They may have a PhD behind their name but they couldn't hold a real job in a million years. They are basically incompetent in anything save the insulated world of academia.

I've had to deal with way too many of those. What a complete pain in the ass.

Spoken like an uneducated imbecile.

Being a stupid sucker means you are educated?

 

[bripat9643]

Are you really that fucking stupid? Scientists are PEOPLE you dumbass. They are no more ethical (though they should be) than any other population group. And for your information there are plenty of scientists who are no more than educated idiots. They may have a PhD behind their name but they couldn't hold a real job in a million years. They are basically incompetent in anything save the insulated world of academia.

It's interesting that Westwall's argument comes down to - ignore scientists.

And your argument is that we can trust government bureaucrats no matter what.

 

[bripat9643]

You dumb fuck, the reason they became scientists in the first place is because they have more intelligence and integrity than the average person.

Are you really that fucking stupid? Scientists are PEOPLE you dumbass. They are no more ethical (though they should be) than any other population group. And for your information there are plenty of scientists who are no more than educated idiots. They may have a PhD behind their name but they couldn't hold a real job in a million years. They are basically incompetent in anything save the insulated world of academia.

I've had to deal with way too many of those. What a complete pain in the ass.

In other words, they recognized you for the fraud that you are.

ROFL! Speaking of frauds . . . .

 

[bripat9643]

It sounds like you're saying that Mother Teresa and the guy down at the local used car lot are on the same ethical plane because they're both people.

Credentials exist for a reason. Once somebody goes through the considerable hell it takes to earn a PhD, the argument should be over that they'll make stupid mistakes in logic or fail to take into account the issues that average people consider themselves clever enough to consider. From that basis, the minutiae can be dismissed and a real discussion of the merits of particular research can begin. Cons generally don't want to do that though. They want to take every argument from ground zero and discuss stupid shit over and over until any deeper meaning is thoroughly lost.

You're an idiot. Your argument is called "the appeal to authority." It's a logical fallacy. Credentials don't constitute proof of anything, dipstick.

 

[Hum Dinger]

Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

This is an Outrage!

I demand that they remove all furnaces, ventilation systems, air conditioning and fans from all schools immediately!

 

[Hum Dinger]

It sounds like you're saying that Mother Teresa and the guy down at the local used car lot are on the same ethical plane because they're both people.

Credentials exist for a reason. Once somebody goes through the considerable hell it takes to earn a PhD, the argument should be over that they'll make stupid mistakes in logic or fail to take into account the issues that average people consider themselves clever enough to consider. From that basis, the minutiae can be dismissed and a real discussion of the merits of particular research can begin. Cons generally don't want to do that though. They want to take every argument from ground zero and discuss stupid shit over and over until any deeper meaning is thoroughly lost.

You're an idiot. Your argument is called "the appeal to authority." It's a logical fallacy. Credentials don't constitute proof of anything, dipstick.

Credentials do not prove anything, but the opinions of people who have been well educated and have worked their entire lives in a field are much more likely to be accurate than the opinions of those who know next to nothing about the subject - like yourself for example.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Saigon doesn't understand Americans. "Conservatism" to him is not the same as it is to us. His view of the U.S. is shaped by liberals and atheists. To him, mediocrity is excellence, and he will never understand what true conservatism is, or what it's like to excel. I pity the fool.

Who cares. Saigon is not an American. Therefore he has no right to opine on American matters. He should worry about his home nation.

 

[thereisnospoon]

and why we don't want this biased 'green' propaganda in our childrens' classrooms....

One's political views are irrelevant to whether some aspect of scientific work is valid or not. To say the least.

The point being that what might become a part of standard curricula is what is justified scientifically, whatever some people are driven to associate with the actual science and which need not be equivalent.

And, indeed, while Al Gore, or whatever politician, doesn't, as far as I know, display a particularly keen understanding of the various relevant data, along with the accompanying physics, the essence of what they're all saying is more right than wrong.

For no one here who has a particularly fervent dislike of these ideas seems to merely be concerned by a lack of pedanticism; It seems to run...deeper.

I attempting to decipher your posts, most of us have had their eyes glaze over sending us reaching for the toothpicks. So much so , you are now posting to yourself.

 

[thereisnospoon]

One's political views have no effect on the validity of any aspect of any scientific work. To think so is, if I might make a personal statement, is ridiculously self-serving. And as a note, very little of the above is even about what is termed climate science, and more about what one reads in the news, and about politicians and politics, which again is not relevant.

The government could exist entirely to only do what you, he who goes by the handle 'thereisnospoon,' want and it still wouldn't mean that the world would have or would not have a certain characteristic, or a certain nature.

You want to translate that psycho-babble into English?

There's nothing overly confusing about what was written.

So states the pompous ass.