Kansas Bill Would Require Teachers To Misinform Students About Climate Change

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

corrosion doctors? http://corrosion-doctors.org/Carbon-Feedback/Introduction.htm

[rlogan 2,036]

There wasn't a legitimate reason to lie about the Act in the title of the OP. Hypocrisy doesn't help your cause - misinforming people about what the act does.

It is also obvious from the picture how devoid of life the left side is vs the right side with trees growing and water that supports life. That's some juicy hypocrisy too over this whole thing. Ice = Good. Life = Bad.

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

There wasn't a legitimate reason to lie about the Act in the title of the OP. Hypocrisy doesn't help your cause - misinforming people about what the act does.

It is also obvious from the picture how devoid of life the left side is vs the right side with trees growing and water that supports life. That's some juicy hypocrisy too over this whole thing. Ice = Good. Life = Bad.

It's not a lie. Telling kids that climate change is anything but a sound, scientific theory - right up there with evolution and gravity, would be telling the students a lie. This is another intelligent design battle.

[james&olya 1,121]

[quote name=' timestamp='1361466933' post='5994886]

Looks like the end of an ice age. Cool! Warmer planet is better for life. This should really kickstart evolution. The greatest evolutionary spurts have always been during warm and moist periods of planetary history.

You would love real estate on Mercury!

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

Three States Push Bills to Require Teaching Climate Change Denial in Schools

The front group for the pollution industry has convinced three states to consider bills that, if passed, would require public schools to teach a so-called "balanced" view of global warming, in which the massive scientific proof of of man-made global warming is paired with the polluters' unscientific climate change denial.

Oklahoma, Colorado and Arizona's Legislatures are debating similar bills, all written by the pollution industry front group, the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC). The bills all refer to global warming as a "theory" and a "controversy" with scientific weaknesses. The Oklahoma bills say that students need to "develop critical thinking skills they need in order to become intelligent, productive and scientifically informed citizens."

That last bit is not an attempt at humor. ALEC wants to promote the false notion that there is some debate as to whether temperatures are rising faster and higher than normal and that this increase is connected to man-made carbon emissions, which are also rising fast. "Critical thinking skills," in ALEC's mind, means covering your ears and repeating "nah nah nah" whenever a scientist talks about global warming.

Scientists almost unanimously agree that the rise in carbon emissions is directly linked to rising temperatures. They also agree that rising temperatures not only exceed any normal historical fluctuations in the global climate, but that higher temps are responsible for the rise in extreme weather, the melting of the polar ice caps, rising sea levels and more.

ALEC is comprised of corporate lobbyists who write bills that well-greased lawmakers then introduce to Congress and State Legislatures nation-wide. ALEC gets most of its funding from the fossil fuel industry, and its interests are solely to protect the industry's bottom line.

http://ecowatch.org/...denial-schools/

Edited February 22, 2013 by Lincolns mullet

[james&olya 1,121]

Yet the planet earth still went through warming and cooling cycles even with that stable carbon cycle. Amazing isn't it?

There are multiple factors in play! Wow. So just pick the one most convenient for an ostrich mentality and hang on!

The tobacco industry played this game as well for decades. There may still be doubters as to the role tobacco plays in lung cancer, heart disease, and many other issues but, if so, they keep a low profile because they know how stupid that intelligent society considers that point of view.

[Teddy B 17,252]

There are multiple factors in play! Wow. So just pick the one most convenient for an ostrich mentality and hang on!

The tobacco industry played this game as well for decades. There may still be doubters as to the role tobacco plays in lung cancer, heart disease, and many other issues but, if so, they keep a low profile because they know how stupid that intelligent society considers that point of view.

Yes there are multiple factors in play. Why do you insist on ignoring them?

[james&olya 1,121]

There wasn't a legitimate reason to lie about the Act in the title of the OP. Hypocrisy doesn't help your cause - misinforming people about what the act does.

It is also obvious from the picture how devoid of life the left side is vs the right side with trees growing and water that supports life. That's some juicy hypocrisy too over this whole thing. Ice = Good. Life = Bad.

Problem is that even as a satellite photo may show some small areas in white turning green, there will be other areas that were green and now are becoming brown! There will be some areas that become more livable such as Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. Other highly populated areas will suffer enormously!

[james&olya 1,121]

Yes there are multiple factors in play. Why do you insist on ignoring them?

I don't. And I also don't pretend that the small and slow shifts that have been seen historically were caused by the same factors causing the large and rapid alterations currently.

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

There's no controversy. There's no legitimate doubt or argument. Those who insist there are have either been misled by misinformation or are ignorant to how the Carbon Cycle works.

[Karee 4,191]

http://ecowatch.org/...denial-schools/

I think the problem is your sources. Your above article refers to the "pollution industry" and "polluters." Kinda hard to say that source is not biased in some way with a term like that.

Edited February 22, 2013 by Karee

[rlogan 2,036]

Problem is that even as a satellite photo may show some small areas in white turning green, there will be other areas that were green and now are becoming brown! There will be some areas that become more livable such as Greenland, Iceland, Alaska, Canada, and Siberia. Other highly populated areas will suffer enormously!

This is a perfect example of politically correct bias. The land masses you just mentioned are staggering. Take a look at a map to see how enormous Alaska, Canada, Siberia, and Greenland are. The scale is incredible. It isn't just glaciers, it is all the permafrost land that can turn into lush pasture/farmland supporting life on a vastly greater scale.

But the propaganda meme is bad, bad, bad, all bad even when someone is pointing out that the very picture shown has a positive result. So when that positive result is pointed out, the politically correct meme is to minimize it, misinform about the scale of it, pretend that humans are too stupid to adjust to changes in climate even though they have been doing just that for millions of years. Look how you automatically assumed without data that there would be more brown than green as a result. Maybe so - but just assuming that is stupid and anti-science when the scale of the places you mentioned is so amazing.

Instead of making scientific calculations and careful cost-benefit analysis we have people like the OP lying about what this act says. Framing climate change as bad, bad, all bad, even the good is bad... talk about anti-science!

Lying is not justified, period. Science is not about incessantly harping on negatives and concealing positives. The act does not say that schools have to teach climate change is not happening. Show me where it says that. I don't favor the act and the last place I would send my children is public schools. But I loathe deception.

I'm also offended by people of low intellectual acumen pretending that they are intellectual giants by harping on something so fricking simplistic and prove themselves incapable of getting beyond a 12-year old's level of understanding. There is danger in both understating and overstating the problem. The government is positively drooling over the carbon tax revenues it can generate, and it is also a mistake to impoverish ourselves needlessly.

I spent four years analyzing alternative energy projects for government funding, and about the only projects that made sense were hydro. The scale of waste on many of the others was staggering. And guess who was lining up for all that government money? Some of the same large corporations the OP and his sources are calling the "pollution industry". This view of his is utterly naiive, overly simplistic, and worthy of scorn.

It is the pea-brains that want to keep the level of discussion at "global warming, global warming, global warming..." and never getting beyond their stupid meme to actually apply science to the problem. It is the kind of thinking that gets these projects funded that I have been reviewing even though the results are so appalling.

[james&olya 1,121]

This is a perfect example of politically correct bias. The land masses you just mentioned are staggering. Take a look at a map to see how enormous Alaska, Canada, Siberia, and Greenland are. The scale is incredible. It isn't just glaciers, it is all the permafrost land that can turn into lush pasture/farmland supporting life on a vastly greater scale.

So you think any of these places will open up for massive immigration from places like Bangladesh? No? I didn't think so!

[james&olya 1,121]

Instead of making scientific calculations and careful cost-benefit analysis we have people like the OP lying about what this act says. Framing climate change as bad, bad, all bad, even the good is bad... talk about anti-science!

Science does not concern itself with good vs bad determinations. That is for ethicists and philosophers.

[james&olya 1,121]

I spent four years analyzing alternative energy projects for government funding, and about the only projects that made sense were hydro. The scale of waste on many of the others was staggering. And guess who was lining up for all that government money? Some of the same large corporations the OP and his sources are calling the "pollution industry". This view of his is utterly naiive, overly simplistic, and worthy of scorn.

It is the pea-brains that want to keep the level of discussion at "global warming, global warming, global warming..." and never getting beyond their stupid meme to actually apply science to the problem. It is the kind of thinking that gets these projects funded that I have been reviewing even though the results are so appalling.

I did not realize you had the education and expertise in alternative energy to be such an analyst for the government! Where can I look for the articles you have published?

As to the 'pollution industry' trying to get in on the research on alternative energy, it might be an honest effort to transition to coming technologies. Or it could be the best way to steer the 'findings' in a way that guarantees their pockets will continue to be filled to capacity even if it destroys the future of civilization or large parts of it on this planet!

As to pea brains and science, you obviously have little actual understanding or appreciation of the enormous volume of peer-reviewed research in this area!