Kansas Bill Would Require Teachers To Misinform Students About Climate Change

[Karee 4,191]

I remember someone going on about how the sun revolved around the earth once.

[Teddy B 17,252]

The final truth about the details of global warming will only be known for a certainty after it has fully played out, and even then there will probably be some questions. Global warming is absolutely NOT bunk! The basic theory has had more and more confirmation. Yes, the details are still being filled in and nobody suggests we know all now. Just because some peoples' conjectures associated with the broader theory have missed the mark does not in the least disprove the theory. This is very reminiscent of the way the tobacco lobby attacked the association of tobacco and lung cancer. It is pathetic to see how many of you willingly, almost eagerly, chug that corporate kool-aid! As this man-made calamity gradually unfolds over the coming decades I hope all of you who were willing torch-carriers for the fossil fuel lobbies and their disinformation campaign will have the integrity to acknowledge the active role you played.

Not chugging any kool-aid James, just not so eager to buy into a theory that has been changed numerous times and manipulated with lies by the people that are pushing it. Why is it pathetic to be skeptical based on the previous track record of the global warming crowd? You don't think these people have an agenda or that millions of dollars aren't at stake for them?

It is very evident that climate change is taking place. What is not very evident is how much of a role man is playing in it, or whether man can play a role in stopping it. I for one think it's naive to put too much stake in either of those without more proof.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Teddy B

[james&olya 1,121]

Why is it pathetic to be skeptical based on the previous track record of the global warming crowd? You don't think these people have an agenda or that millions of dollars aren't at stake for them?

Yeah, right, millions and millions! Come on, that does not now and never has passed the laugh test. There might somewhere be one or two moderate paying jobs dependent on someone accepting the theory of climate change but there are literally billions, maybe trillions of dollars yet to be made by those who must derail any action on climate change, at least by creating doubt and confusion. As to 'green' energy, that is something that will eventually be necessary in any case and the evidence is that it would create many jobs here. It would cost profits to the few and the ultra-rich though, so that is why they are getting you and many others drinking the kool-aid and congratulating each other on how smart you are for doing so!

Edited February 20, 2013 by james&olya

[Karee 4,191]

There might somewhere be one or two moderate paying jobs dependent on someone accepting the theory of climate change

[james&olya 1,121]

Ditto-head?

[Karee 4,191]

Ditto-head?

LMGTFY.

http://bit.ly/YH4iZe

Google can be your friend.

Edited February 20, 2013 by Karee

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Global warming as it was first introduced has been proven to be bunk and it has also been proven that the "scientific numbers" used as the basis of Climate Change have been conveniently adjusted to suit the cause. For anyone to buy into any type of Climate Change theories without questioning it would be foolish based on past experience.

As it was first introduced? Are you talking about scientists predictions from nearly a century ago?

The premise is simple - CO2 is a heat trapping gas that accumulates into the atmosphere and the burning of fossil fuels over time has added more CO2 to the atmosphere than the earth's carbon cycle can process, resulting in accelerated rise in the earth's overall temperature. That is undisputed science that isn't open for debate. That theory is as sound as the theory of evolution. There is no dispute that biological evolution is real. What is open to scientific discovery and speculation is putting all the pieces together, but as pieces to the puzzle are discovered, the theory itself is never challenged...except in non-scientific circles. To allow teachers to tell their students that Climate Change is not based on the same solid, scientific principles as the theory of evolution would be a lie.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Scientific studies have shown that atmospheric Carbon Dioxide in past eras reached concentrations that were 20 times higher than the current concentration. Recent investigations have shown that the current change of climate is part of a larger cycle known as climatic lowstand phase which precedes a sequential warming period known as transgression phase. The purpose of this evaluation is to demonstrate that the Earth is actually cooling, in the context of the total geological timescale, and that the current change is equivalent to a serial climate phase known as lowstand.

At the moment, the area of continental flood is almost 7%; according to climatic succession, we expect the area of continental flood to increase to almost 10%, but never so massive that it will put human populations in danger, as the IPCC has taken to suggesting almost every day. Allow me to clarify that most of the claims regarding catastrophic climate change filling the newspapers are overblown and based on data that is being arbitrarily exaggerated to blame humanity for climatic changes which are absolutely natural.

http://www.biocab.org/carbon_dioxide_geological_timescale.html

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I remember someone going on about how the sun revolved around the earth once.

Wow you remember that ? You are old dude.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

As it was first introduced? Are you talking about scientists predictions from nearly a century ago?

The premise is simple - CO2 is a heat trapping gas that accumulates into the atmosphere and the burning of fossil fuels over time has added more CO2 to the atmosphere than the earth's carbon cycle can process, resulting in accelerated rise in the earth's overall temperature. That is undisputed science that isn't open for debate. That theory is as sound as the theory of evolution. There is no dispute that biological evolution is real. What is open to scientific discovery and speculation is putting all the pieces together, but as pieces to the puzzle are discovered, the theory itself is never challenged...except in non-scientific circles. To allow teachers to tell their students that Climate Change is not based on the same solid, scientific principles as the theory of evolution would be a lie.

[decocker 7,198]

i'm with ya nature boy. i normally don't do scientific comparisons but when i do, i use time magazine covers. explaining science stuff is just that simple..

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

i'm with ya nature boy. i normally don't do scientific comparisons but when i do, i use time magazine covers. explaining science stuff is just that simple..

What is Occam's Razor?

As it was first introduced? Are you talking about scientists predictions from nearly a century ago?

The premise is simple - CO2 is a heat trapping gas that accumulates into the atmosphere and the burning of fossil fuels over time has added more CO2 to the atmosphere than the earth's carbon cycle can process, resulting in accelerated rise in the earth's overall temperature. That is undisputed science that isn't open for debate. That theory is as sound as the theory of evolution. There is no dispute that biological evolution is real. What is open to scientific discovery and speculation is putting all the pieces together, but as pieces to the puzzle are discovered, the theory itself is never challenged...except in non-scientific circles. To allow teachers to tell their students that Climate Change is not based on the same solid, scientific principles as the theory of evolution would be a lie.

If it is the warmest it has been in 1000 years, what was man doing back then to mess things up ?

[decocker 7,198]

What is Occam's Razor?

name the newest member of wu-tang for a thousand alex.

[james&olya 1,121]

i'm with ya nature boy. i normally don't do scientific comparisons but when i do, i use time magazine covers. explaining science stuff is just that simple..

They couldn't print it if it wasn't true!

[elmcitymaven 9,712]

name the newest member of wu-tang for a thousand alex.