Climate Change Science Poised to Enter Nation's Classrooms

[realinvestment]

The absolute truth is neither side is able to prove their point with any exactness. In my eyes its an experiment and someday we will find out the results. Quite the conundrum. To see it any other way is simply living a lie, which you people seem good at.

The most abundant greenhouse gas by far is water vapor. Every time the temperature increases 20 degrees F, its capacity to hold water vapor doubles.

But an odd thing happens with water vapor...when it heats up, it tends to rise, expelling its excess heat into outerspace, offset with rain. Of course no one can prove how this impacts things with any exactness.

 

[S.J.]

This thread is proof that liberals will buy into anything, as long as it's being promoted by other liberals. No one here yet has provided any proof, just claims. It's like evolution, they don't think they have to prove anything, others have to "disprove" it.

Again, just because you are a backward-ass ignorant bible thumper who doesn't understand the science, doesn't mean the science is wrong.

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.

 

[S.J.]

There is plenty of evidence for man made climate impact, you just don't want to believe it.

You just can't prove it.

Sure I can, way more than you can prove the opposite.

Nice job ignoring the other part of my previous post. Since we now know you're a hypocrite.

I don't have to prove the opposite. Like I just told your buddy, Joey, the burden of proof is on you, asshole.

 

[S.J.]

The absolute truth is neither side is able to prove their point with any exactness. In my eyes its an experiment and someday we will find out the results. Quite the conundrum. To see it any other way is simply living a lie, which you people seem good at.

Only one side needs to provide proof, and that's the side that makes the claim that global warming exists and that it is caused by human activity (not liberal humans, of course) and states it as fact. They have consistently failed to do that.

 

[Grandma]

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

 

[bripat9643]

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

Syllogisms à la Mode — If you are against labor racketeers, then you are against the working man. If you are against demagogues, then you are against democracy. If you are against Christianity, then you are against God. If you are against trying a can of old Dr. Quack's Cancer Salve, then you are in favor of letting Uncle Julius die.

H. L. Mencken - "The Citizen and the State"

I would add, "if you are against indoctrinating children, then you are against education."

 

[Saigon]

The absolute truth is neither side is able to prove their point with any exactness. In my eyes its an experiment and someday we will find out the results. Quite the conundrum. To see it any other way is simply living a lie, which you people seem good at.

Only one side needs to provide proof, and that's the side that makes the claim that global warming exists and that it is caused by human activity (not liberal humans, of course) and states it as fact. They have consistently failed to do that.

I am happy to present that info anytime, anywhere.

The only condition is that you commit to reading it, and that you look at it with an open mind.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Guy, I look at the science.

Fact- CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas"- it traps heat in the atmosphere.

Fact- Human activity puts a lot more CO2 into the atmosphere than nature does.

Fact- Global warming has accellerated since the begining of the industrial age.

Is that how it works?

OK.

Fact: CO2 is a "Greenhouse gas" - it traps heat in the atmosphere.

Fact: When JoeB131 runs his mouth in syllogisms that are full of holes, he expels ever more CO2.

Fact: Global Whatever has accelerated since the time JoeB131 started talking.

CONCLUSION: However much additional Global Whatever we now have, it's JoeB131's fault.

Hey, cool! I *like* this kind of "logic"! See what neat stuff you can "prove" with it?

 

[Saigon]

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.

I am always baffled when people talk about "you cult memebers" and then provide cast iron proof that they do not understand the basis of climate change themselves.

Your mistake here is to assume all CO2 would be held in the atmosphere. It wouldn't.

Given your error here, it might be worth asking yourself again why everything sientific organisation on earth thinks you are wrong.

 

[pjnlsn]

This thread is proof that liberals will buy into anything, as long as it's being promoted by other liberals. No one here yet has provided any proof, just claims. It's like evolution, they don't think they have to prove anything, others have to "disprove" it.

In your posts, there are repeated references to something you dislike. But because you've acquired some symbol of various things you dislike and because you apply it to certain people doesn't mean the world is or is not, is or has not been, a certain way.

As before:

As I said, the topic too often becomes cluttered with irrelevancies because people without knowledge of it make it a political issue. Or they treat it instead as an unrelated issue.

If you're really contesting the bare minimum, there is, again, known to be some connection between human activities and global warming. And if you are, you probably don't know much about the topic.

 

[pjnlsn]

What the AGW cultists believe isn't science. It's a con. No one "needs" it do be false, just as no one needs the earth centric view of the solar system to be false.

And at some point you may realise that there are now only 7 people on earth who believe this.

The world has moved on BriPat. You don't need to move on with it, but you do need to realise that you are stuck arguing the benefits of the steam engine.

The fact is no one cares about the global warming con any more. In survey after survey, concern about global warming is at the bottom of the list. The game is over. You're pissing in the wind.

Again, the reason any discussion on the topic becomes unnecessarily cluttered is because people treat the issue of whether something is true about the environmental interaction, now and in the past, of this planet, like a political issue.

If no one in the entire world cared about it, it still wouldn't mean that something was or was not true about the world. And the thread title revolves around such an issue, not how much favor your political opponents have, in a particular scope and context.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

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

 

[JoeB131]

[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.

 

[JoeB131]

[

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.

 

[JoeB131]

[


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 Fucking 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.

 

[NoNukes]

And at some point you may realise that there are now only 7 people on earth who believe this.

The world has moved on BriPat. You don't need to move on with it, but you do need to realise that you are stuck arguing the benefits of the steam engine.

He might want his children to fall behind the rest of the world, but I do not want that to be my children's fate.

I think my children will do just fine without being brainwashed with the AGW abracadabra.

They will do fine if they take a different intellectual path than their father.

 

[bripat9643]

[

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.

 

[bripat9643]

He might want his children to fall behind the rest of the world, but I do not want that to be my children's fate.

I think my children will do just fine without being brainwashed with the AGW abracadabra.

They will do fine if they take a different intellectual path than their father.

You're an imbecile.

 

[Darkwind]

I thought religion was banned from schools?

 

[Saigon]

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?