Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[thereisnospoon]

You were born in the wrong era. Your medieval attitudes about everything under the sun would have made you feel more at home in the European Middle Ages...except for one major problem that almost certainly would have been an insurmountable obstacle for you. That's the fact that you have a tendency to shoot your mouth off about things you know nothing about. They would have gutted you like a fish the first time you crossed that line in those days, while here, in modern day liberal America, you get to keep on posting to your little heart's delight. See how lucky you really are?

Clearly you don't know much about history either. Save blasphemy you could say almost anything you wanted to. And, if you were in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II you would have been feted on a regular basis.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. There was nothing analogous to Constitutional rights in those days. Neither was there any concept of citizen's rights. In those days, the powers that be didn't need much in the way of a motive to punish someone pretty much any way they damn well saw fit if and when that person stepped out of line. And who was going to protest? The equivalent of the ACLU that conservatives love to condemn?

Cut the deflection bullshit.
The right to free speech is ordained by God. Which has been proven to be diametrically opposed to liberalism.
Liberal America...About 20% of the population.
Oh, the ACLU has zero credibility. This is explained in example after example that the ACLU is a liberal organization with an agenda of protecting the rights of liberals.
The ACLU should rename itself the Liberal Civil Liberties Union. Only then would this political organization have any credibility.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

College level philosophy? I hope you paid for that out of your own pocket.
I cannot think of any business who's hiring manager would say "Oh look, this guy studied college level philosophy. By God we MUST hire this guy!!!!!"....

 

[thereisnospoon]

Wow, way to incorectly site a logical falacy. Maybe this is why you're so consistently misinformed. You think it's against the rules to listen to the authorities on any subject.

Here's a little guide to 'argument from authority'.

Argument from authority - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

We do not prove negatives around here. Clearly you libs look to this tactic so that you may for your own convenience post at will things that are opinion presented as fact. Your next response is "prove me wrong"....Uh uh....That's not how it's done.

 

[Saigon]

Not one single shred of scientific data has been produced that, for example, carbon taxes, the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes have reduced pollution.

Oh, on the contrary - there is no doubt at all that every country who has put their mind to it has reduced emissions significantly - and people have benefitted hugely from this.

Better insulation, lights on automatic timers, dimmer switches, better lightbulbs...companies and people have saved millions bu using new technologies.

It is just that not every country that signed up to Kyoto has made the effort to stick to it.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

I don't think you understand the concept of a 'fallacious appeal to authority'.

The idea is fallacious if I cite someone who is:
a) not an expert
b) not an expert in this field
c) may be joking, incapacitated or is likely to be wrong from some reason
d) is being cited on the basis of their fame, not their expertise in this area

It is NOT the same thing as citing expertise.

Posting definitions of words from a dictionary is merely citing expertise, particularly as we can be sure that the dictionary is correct, because all other dictionaries are agree, and no dictionaries disagree.

You reasoning is based purely and simply on wanting to re-write history, and to do that you need to re-write dictionaries.

Every appeal to authority is fallacious. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of science and logic. The irrefutable fact is that authorities are often dead wrong, especially about something as difficult to measure or prove as anthropogenic global warming. The fact that you believe there's such a thing as a legitimate authority only shows that you are immune to logic.

.

There you have it folks - there are no "valid authorities" in science.

When BriPat is sick - he diagnoses himself.

 

[JoeNormal]

S.J. -

I don't see the point in comparing the US with Zimbabwe, Fiji or Guam - hence I generally use other western countries as a basis for comparison.

This doesn't exempt other countries from responsibility - it just means that I think they belong in a different category. China and India pollute terribly, obviously, but their situation is quite different to the EU and US. That isn't 'deception', it's just common sense.

No, it is you on mission to punish the US with this climate change crap that if those in support get their way, will crush our economy.
Not one single shred of scientific data has been produced that, for example, carbon taxes, the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes have reduced pollution.

A favorite axe for conservatives to grind says that the more you tax something, the less of it you'll get. Not so?

 

[JoeNormal]

You're an even bigger moron. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of logic. If you insist that something is true because some expert says it's true, all you've done is prove you are immune to logic. What you and Saigon refuse to acknowledge is that authorities are often wrong. They aren't infallible. Until you can find an omniscient being to answer your questions, the appeal to authority will always be a fallacy.

It's clear that one reason liberal turds have fallen for the AGW scam is that they are incapable of rational thought.

I find it hilarious that you quote an authority to prove that the appeal to authority is a valid argument. Your wiki article is wrong and the guy who wrote it is a moron. There is no such thing as a valid appeal to authority.

Find a more trustworthy source that refutes it then. Oh wait, that would be an appeal to authority wouldn't it. Come to think of it, any information that you might want to use to prove pretty much anything would come down to an appeal to authority. I guess you're pretty much condemned to be an ignorant twit then, aren't you.

We do not prove negatives around here. Clearly you libs look to this tactic so that you may for your own convenience post at will things that are opinion presented as fact. Your next response is "prove me wrong"....Uh uh....That's not how it's done.

Proving negatives? No, stating something different than the Wiki link stated in a more authoritative way... Gawd, do you conservatives properly understand anything?

 

[JoeNormal]

Obviously, you don't even understand the meaning of the term "appeal to authority." Using facts and logic to prove a point is beyond you. If some authority doesn't tell you what to think, you probably run around like a chicken that has just been decapitated.

The AGW cultists will have to prove their claims using facts and logic. Bribing enough scientists to form a "consensus" will only convince morons who are incapable of rational thought.

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

College level philosophy? I hope you paid for that out of your own pocket.
I cannot think of any business who's hiring manager would say "Oh look, this guy studied college level philosophy. By God we MUST hire this guy!!!!!"....

Yes, it was out of my own pocket. I'm sure it must come as a surprise to you but employers often seek people who aren't uneducated dumb shits. As evidence, I make six figures.

 

[S.J.]

As evidence, I make six figures.

Yeah, right.

 

[westwall]

Not one single shred of scientific data has been produced that, for example, carbon taxes, the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes have reduced pollution.

Oh, on the contrary - there is no doubt at all that every country who has put their mind to it has reduced emissions significantly - and people have benefitted hugely from this.

Better insulation, lights on automatic timers, dimmer switches, better lightbulbs...companies and people have saved millions bu using new technologies.

It is just that not every country that signed up to Kyoto has made the effort to stick to it.

As usual you avoid the original point which was not one single biut of pollution control has occured because of Kyoto. Many green companies have made billions of dollars for doing not a whole lot of anything other than spew propaganda.

 

[westwall]

As evidence, I make six figures.

Yeah, right.

No, he does.....he makes 1000.00 every month thanks to his food stamps and welfare checks.

 

[bripat9643]

S.J. -

I don't see the point in comparing the US with Zimbabwe, Fiji or Guam - hence I generally use other western countries as a basis for comparison.

This doesn't exempt other countries from responsibility - it just means that I think they belong in a different category. China and India pollute terribly, obviously, but their situation is quite different to the EU and US. That isn't 'deception', it's just common sense.

No, it is you on mission to punish the US with this climate change crap that if those in support get their way, will crush our economy.
Not one single shred of scientific data has been produced that, for example, carbon taxes, the Kyoto Protocol and other schemes have reduced pollution.

A favorite axe for conservatives to grind says that the more you tax something, the less of it you'll get. Not so?

Yep, so the more you tax economic activity, which is all so-called "carbon tax" is, the less of it you will get. Only imbeciles swallow the liberal theory that you can cut back on carbon dioxide emissions with zero economic cost.

 

[bripat9643]

I've taken college level philosophy courses that have touched on epistemology. Here's a book that puts it in a convenient format.

Knowing How to Know: A Practical Philosophy in the Sufi Tradition - Idries Shah - Google Books

College level philosophy? I hope you paid for that out of your own pocket.
I cannot think of any business who's hiring manager would say "Oh look, this guy studied college level philosophy. By God we MUST hire this guy!!!!!"....

Yes, it was out of my own pocket. I'm sure it must come as a surprise to you but employers often seek people who aren't uneducated dumb shits. As evidence, I make six figures.

I doubt they are willing to pay for anyone educated in Sufi epistemology.

 

[JoeNormal]

As evidence, I make six figures.

Yeah, right.

Sorry, I didn't say it to rub your nose in it. I said it to rub thereisnospoon's nose in it. That's just what design engineers with 20+ years experience like me earn. If that's where you want to be, why don't you man up like a good conservative and do what it takes to get there.

 

[bodecea]

New national science standards that make the teaching of global warming part of the public school curriculum are slated to be released this month, potentially ending an era in which climate skepticism has been allowed to seep into the nation's classrooms.

The Next Generation Science Standards were developed by the National Research Council, the National Science Teachers Association, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the nonprofit Achieve and more than two dozen states. The latest draft recommends that educators teach the evidence for man-made climate change starting as early as elementary school and incorporate it into all science classes, ranging from earth science to chemistry. By eighth grade, students should understand that "human activities, such as the release of greenhouse gases from burning fossil fuels, are major factors in the current rise in Earth’s mean surface temperature (global warming)," the standards say.

Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms | InsideClimate News

Yes...yes...We know. Science Bad.

 

[S.J.]

As evidence, I make six figures.

Yeah, right.

Sorry, I didn't say it to rub your nose in it. I said it to rub thereisnospoon's nose in it. That's just what design engineers with 20+ years experience like me earn. If that's where you want to be, why don't you man up like a good conservative and do what it takes to get there.

Prove it.

 

[Mustang]

Clearly you don't know much about history either. Save blasphemy you could say almost anything you wanted to. And, if you were in the Court of the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II you would have been feted on a regular basis.

I don't think you know what you're talking about. There was nothing analogous to Constitutional rights in those days. Neither was there any concept of citizen's rights. In those days, the powers that be didn't need much in the way of a motive to punish someone pretty much any way they damn well saw fit if and when that person stepped out of line. And who was going to protest? The equivalent of the ACLU that conservatives love to condemn?

Cut the deflection bullshit.
The right to free speech is ordained by God. Which has been proven to be diametrically opposed to liberalism.
Liberal America...About 20% of the population.
Oh, the ACLU has zero credibility. This is explained in example after example that the ACLU is a liberal organization with an agenda of protecting the rights of liberals.
The ACLU should rename itself the Liberal Civil Liberties Union. Only then would this political organization have any credibility.

The right to free speech was ordained by God? Where is that in the Bible, exactly?

The ACLU has come to the defense of PLENTY of conservatives (and even RW extremist fanatics like Neo-Nazis) over the years. Sean Hannity springs to mind back in Atlanta when he was fired from his radio job.

 

[westwall]

As evidence, I make six figures.

Yeah, right.

Sorry, I didn't say it to rub your nose in it. I said it to rub thereisnospoon's nose in it. That's just what design engineers with 20+ years experience like me earn. If that's where you want to be, why don't you man up like a good conservative and do what it takes to get there.

If you were who you claim to be you wouldn't have the time or the inclination to waste time posting here. I hang out here because I am retired. Most of the educated types here are likewise retired. Thta's why we have the time to screw around here. When I was working...and making more than you claim BTW, I would never have spent a minute on this site. I simply never had the time to burn.

 

[JoeNormal]

Yeah, right.

Sorry, I didn't say it to rub your nose in it. I said it to rub thereisnospoon's nose in it. That's just what design engineers with 20+ years experience like me earn. If that's where you want to be, why don't you man up like a good conservative and do what it takes to get there.

Prove it.

Would it give me credibility in your eyes? Probably not. You'd probably prefer to ignore or deny the information because it doesn't match your preconceived notions.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

I don't think you understand the concept of a 'fallacious appeal to authority'.

The idea is fallacious if I cite someone who is:
a) not an expert
b) not an expert in this field
c) may be joking, incapacitated or is likely to be wrong from some reason
d) is being cited on the basis of their fame, not their expertise in this area

It is NOT the same thing as citing expertise.

Posting definitions of words from a dictionary is merely citing expertise, particularly as we can be sure that the dictionary is correct, because all other dictionaries are agree, and no dictionaries disagree.

You reasoning is based purely and simply on wanting to re-write history, and to do that you need to re-write dictionaries.

Every appeal to authority is fallacious. There is no such thing as a "valid authority" in terms of science and logic. The irrefutable fact is that authorities are often dead wrong, especially about something as difficult to measure or prove as anthropogenic global warming. The fact that you believe there's such a thing as a legitimate authority only shows that you are immune to logic.

.

There you have it folks - there are no "valid authorities" in science.

When BriPat is sick - he diagnoses himself.

Can you give us the name of a scientist who is infallible?

You are deliberately confusing the difference between the fact that an authority is more likely to give you the correct answer and the claim that theory 'A' is true because scientist 'B' says so. You engage in a verbal slight of hand with these two meanings: You use the first when you are arguing that an appeal to authority is valid, and use the second whenever you're trying to prove your idiot AWG theory is correct.

Of course, this tactic is utterly dishonest and sleazy.