Florida Passes “Anti-Science” Law

[Muhammed]

How is challenging scientific dogma considered anti-science? ....

How dare you challenge the word of Al Gore our Messiah!!!

Heretic!

 

[Avatar4321]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

Sky looks white today. Was.green and orange the other night

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

Clinate change isnt fact. Physical laws in our solar system have been established though.

 

[Muhammed]

Good science questions and peer reviews and even after that is open to fundamental corrections. So when the left want to silence any discussion or questioning of climate science that's a huge red flag.

The following statement sums up the global warming cult's idea of the peer review process.

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ~quoted from Phil Jones.

That's not a joke, he really said that.

 

[Trouble13]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

Not to be a smart ass but water boils at 100c only at sea level. I can make water boil at temps as low as 26c. This is provable because we can repeat it and get consistent results.

Mans effect on the enviroment is a completely different can of worms. In order to accept their conclussions one must do it based on faith. It should not be taught as facts.

Sent from my SM-G920P using Tapatalk

 

[Avatar4321]

water boils at 100c. Period.

Depends on your altitude.

Water boiling point is a couple of degrees lower in Denver, Colorado. ...

Also depends on whether its fresh or salt water

 

[Avatar4321]

Students should question things they are skeptical about,

Thomas Jefferson said we should question with boldness even the very existence of God. But make it honest inquiry

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Students should question things they are skeptical about,

Thomas Jefferson said we should question with boldness even the very existence of God. But make it honest inquiry

We encourage ours to question their teachers, a good teacher will welcome the challenge, a bad one will act like a leftist and demand they accept what they are saying as fact.

 

[Avatar4321]

.
Conservatives in Florida got their wish last Monday when their governor, Rick Scott signed a bill into law guaranteeing scientific facts taught in public schools can be challenged if they offend an individual’s personal beliefs.

Climate change tops the list of such facts denied by conservatives. But will they be as happy about this law when they find their homes waste-deep in seawater? Or, when they are finally forced to tread water 24/7 if they wish to remain in Florida?

The oceans ARE rising, and Florida’s conservatives will eventually discover how burying their head’s in the sand will have them drowning much sooner. This is going to make being a devoted Republican much, much more difficult.

Two Sad Ironies In Florida Passing Its 'Anti-Science' Law

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________

View attachment 136518

Debating a conservative is like playing chess with a pigeon, they wander around the board aimlessly, sh!t on everything, and still believe they won. And they prove this over and over and over.
.

There is a renewed effort in the US for fake Christians to try to impose Christian Sharia law on the rest of the population. In red states children don't go to school to learn facts, they go to learn how facts can't be right because they contradict Christian Sharia law. Conservatives are quickly triggered into quivering lip syndrome whenever their religion is made to look silly by facts. So they use government power to force people to ignore facts. Problem solved. This is exactly why the founders knew the government and the church HAD to be separated.

How does being able to ask questions force people to think a certain way ?

 

[Avatar4321]

Both Newton and Einstein proved existing "settled science" wrong that had been set in stone for centuries.

Todays lefty liberals should take note of this, and quit attaching political PC ideology to the scientific method. .....

But then how can they control the un questioning masses?

 

[healthmyths]

Good science questions and peer reviews and even after that is open to fundamental corrections. So when the left want to silence any discussion or questioning of climate science that's a huge red flag.

The following statement sums up the global warming cult's idea of the peer review process.

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ~quoted from Phil Jones.

That's not a joke, he really said that.

I couldn't believe this could be true but it is!

"Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it." ~quoted from Phil Jones. We Have 25 Years Invested in This Work…

 

[Avatar4321]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

I'm showing this because the "global warming" community seems to have difficulty with simple arithmetic .
In summary the expert says 353 billion trees would cover 24% of the earth. So that would mean 100% of the earth surface would be covered by 4 times 353 billion
or about 1.4 trillion trees. Yet some others say we already have 3 trillion trees. You "scientific" types... explain the simple math that seems the experts can't agree on!
Oh and also explain how with 1.6 trillion trees absorbing ALL the CO2 emitted we have a problem?

View attachment 136521

Maybe there is a lot of overlap with the trees. Also, what about the oceans, are they accounted for in the estimate. Not very many trees in the ocean as far as I know.

Duh... that's why if you read what the "expert" said he said: "earth's surface"!
And I'm pretty sure even though his math maybe questioned he would agree trees don't grow in the ocean.
But evidently you missed the point.
Global warming expert can't do simple math. Therefore how can this or any of the global warming experts' calculations have any creditability?

They can't even tell us what temperature the world is supposed to be.

 

[Avatar4321]

People need to remember science is a method of learning truth. Not a set dogma of unquestionable facts

 

[healthmyths]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

I'm showing this because the "global warming" community seems to have difficulty with simple arithmetic .
In summary the expert says 353 billion trees would cover 24% of the earth. So that would mean 100% of the earth surface would be covered by 4 times 353 billion
or about 1.4 trillion trees. Yet some others say we already have 3 trillion trees. You "scientific" types... explain the simple math that seems the experts can't agree on!
Oh and also explain how with 1.6 trillion trees absorbing ALL the CO2 emitted we have a problem?

View attachment 136521

Maybe there is a lot of overlap with the trees. Also, what about the oceans, are they accounted for in the estimate. Not very many trees in the ocean as far as I know.

Duh... that's why if you read what the "expert" said he said: "earth's surface"!
And I'm pretty sure even though his math maybe questioned he would agree trees don't grow in the ocean.
But evidently you missed the point.
Global warming expert can't do simple math. Therefore how can this or any of the global warming experts' calculations have any creditability?

They can't even tell us what temperature the world is supposed to be.

I've always wondered why there was oil exploration in the Arctic and Antartica considering this is required to create coal/petroleum.
Crude oil, coal and gas are fossil fuels. They were formed over millions of years, from the remains of dead organisms, coal was formed from dead plant material. crude oil and gas were formed from dead marine organisms.
BBC - GCSE Bitesize: Fossil fuels


In a chapter on Energy Minerals in the Encyclopedia of the Antarctic of 2007, MacDonald, professor for petroleum geology at the University of Aberdeen, explains that the only exploitable coal is hard to get to and that no oil and gas has ever been found. “The petroleum potential is unproven (but likely to be low). Coupled with the difficulties of working in the harsh environment, it is unlikely that any exploration will occur in the future”, the chapter concludes.
THE ANTARCTIC OIL MYTH - Antarctic and Southern Ocean Coalition

So if dead plant material formed coal and dead marine formed oil and gas...hmmmm are there any plants growing in Antartica now?
Hmmmm...

 

[healthmyths]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

I'm showing this because the "global warming" community seems to have difficulty with simple arithmetic .
In summary the expert says 353 billion trees would cover 24% of the earth. So that would mean 100% of the earth surface would be covered by 4 times 353 billion
or about 1.4 trillion trees. Yet some others say we already have 3 trillion trees. You "scientific" types... explain the simple math that seems the experts can't agree on!
Oh and also explain how with 1.6 trillion trees absorbing ALL the CO2 emitted we have a problem?

View attachment 136521

Maybe there is a lot of overlap with the trees. Also, what about the oceans, are they accounted for in the estimate. Not very many trees in the ocean as far as I know.

Duh... that's why if you read what the "expert" said he said: "earth's surface"!
And I'm pretty sure even though his math maybe questioned he would agree trees don't grow in the ocean.
But evidently you missed the point.
Global warming expert can't do simple math. Therefore how can this or any of the global warming experts' calculations have any creditability?

They can't even tell us what temperature the world is supposed to be.

And remember this is how for decades before digital thermometers these thousands of temperature stations manned by mostly volunteers standing in extreme heat and cold read the temperatures and recorded them.

 

[easyt65]

Is this thread about the left's believe we all came prom pre-existing matter that just 'was' eons ago and their hatred of Christianity / religion?

 

[Muhammed]

That's what I don't like about it: a group assembled to come to a foregone conclusion. That is not how science is supposed to work and it is not how the scientists slowly over the years came to the conclusions they have on global warming. It is not just scientists in the U.S. who have come to these conclusions.

Actually, I hate the be the one to break the news to you, OldLady, but you are describing exactly how they came to their conclusions. Surely you've heard of the climategate emails that were released by wikileaks. Do you remember the huge uproar regarding "Mike's Nature trick"?

That's what the trick was! They cherry-picked data in order to come to a preconceived conclusion. And you are correct, that is not how science is supposed to work.

Now that I have informed you of what they did it's OK if you are angry. You damn well should be angry about it.

They wasted billions of our limited scientific dollars on a big fraud. That money could have gone to something worthwhile like fighting cancer or heart disease.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Oh look. The party of faux science says if you question them you're anti-science.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Scott Pruitt is forming a program to question climate change science:

Scott Pruitt, administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, is reportedly launching a program within the department to "critique" mainstream climate science, a senior administration official said, according to reports.

Wow. Just wow.

EPA Head Reportedly Launching Program to 'Critique' Climate Science

And I say good for him.

 

[bripat9643]

Facts cannot be challenged.

The sky is blue and water boils at 100c. Period.

Here's another fact: globull warming is a con.