'Teach the Controversy' Comes to the Science of Global Warming

‘Teach the Controversy’ Comes to the Science of Global Warming

ScienceMay 2010 • Views: 7,033

Using exactly the same deceptive “teach the controversy” tactics as creationists have for years, a Republican pressure group with the Orwellian name “Balanced Education for Everyone” is trying to force schools not to teach global warming in science classes: Push to teach ‘other side’ of global warming heats up in Colorado’s Mesa County.

GRAND JUNCTION — A national group that thinks global warming is “junk science” and that teaching it is unnecessarily scaring schoolchildren brought its first petition effort for “balanced education” to Mesa County Schools on Tuesday night.

Rose Pugliese, an unsuccessful candidate for a District 51 school board seat in the last election, presented a petition with 700 signatures to the board asking that science teachers stop giving lessons on global warming. Pugliese, a 32-year-old Grand Junction attorney and activist in Tea Party and conservative Republican groups, also presented a petition with 600 signatures demanding Mesa County schools keep political views out of classrooms.

Pugliese’s efforts have made her the poster girl for the group Balanced Education for Everyone and have pinpointed Mesa County as a national test case for keeping the teaching of humans’ influence on global warming out of science classes.

“It (global warming) is not a proven scientific theory. There is not evidence to support it,” Pugliese told the board, generating applause from about 40 Tea Party and other conservative group members who filled the room for the first school board petition battle over this issue in the country.

The climate-change deniers scoffed and shook their heads when a scientist and a college professor spoke up to say that global warming is a well-supported scientific fact. “This is not just some liberal theory,” said Richard Alward, an ecologist with a Ph.D. Tamera Minnick, an associate professor in environmental science at Mesa State College, had the audience tittering when she told the board that global warming is as certain a scientific theory as those describing relativity, gravity and evolution.

Pugliese and three other people who spoke against global-warming education said that if the subject is going to be taught, the “other side” should be presented so that students aren’t subjected to a frightening untruth.

This might as well be Exhibit 47b on why I refuse to be associated with the GOP or the right wing. They’re ignorant and proud of it, and they want to force their anti-science ignorance on everyone else.

Jump to bottom

131 comments

darthstar Fri, May 28, 2010 10:04:11am

Boy, it’s a good thing the information age is over…all that data was starting to confuse me.
/

Kragar (Antichrist ) Fri, May 28, 2010 10:04:29am

The rising of the ancient city of Ryleh is opening gas pockets, altering the Earth’s atmosphere, making it a more suitable habitat for our new master’s upon their awakening.

For next “teach the controversy” segment, Teabaggers: born stupid or do they work at it.

Killgore Trout Fri, May 28, 2010 10:05:34am

“This is not just some liberal theory,” said Richard Alward, an ecologist with a Ph.D. Tamera Minnick, an associate professor in environmental science at Mesa State College, had the audience tittering when she told the board that global warming is as certain a scientific theory as those describing relativity, gravity and evolution.

lol

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:06:17am

Rose Pugliese is hereby awarded the Order of the Silver Crocoduck for excellent in the field of science disruption. For those interested, in Italian his last name means He who wears teabags.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Fri, May 28, 2010 10:07:06am

re: #3 Killgore Trout

lol

He really doesn’t get that crowd, does he?

Sol Berdinowitz Fri, May 28, 2010 10:09:00am

These are people who reject science as a whoe in favor of Revealed Truth. There will be no arguing with them, all we can do is try to limit the amount of damage they can cause to our educational system.

darthstar Fri, May 28, 2010 10:10:22am

Gravity is a liberal conspiracy meant to keep people grounded in reality. If it was real, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to walk on the water, and ET wouldn’t have been able to keep Eliot’s bicycle off the ground for so long.
(Ellliiiooot…)

Mark Pennington Fri, May 28, 2010 10:13:57am

The way the majority of them interpret their overwhelming losses in the scholarly and legal forum is as follows:

“The world belongs to the devil.”

I kid you not. From my own parents (teachers) to public school principals and administrators, preachers, apologists, activists, and right-wing politicians, although they won’t say it publicly (at least not usually), this is seriously how many of them analyze their losses in the public forum. I have heard it literally dozens if not hundreds of time throughout my life.

Since some Bible passages describe the world as being utterly evil and under Satan’s direct control (e.g., Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:12, 1 John 5:19), creationists and fundamentalists believe that Satan himself is behind the pro-evolution science taught in American high schools, and literally pulled some sort of diabolical strings to get verdicts. No matter what kind of legal, scientific, or logical evidence argues against their position, they will NEVER change their mind…because it’s all a diabolical conspiracy.

Killgore Trout Fri, May 28, 2010 10:14:29am

re: #5 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

He really doesn’t get that crowd, does he?

Not surprising, most of his friends and associates are probably educated professionals. I don’t really hang out with an upscale crowd but I haven’t met a creationist in person since I was a kid.

Kefirah Fri, May 28, 2010 10:14:40am

there is “not evidence to support it?”

i know a couple hundred polar bears who’d like to speak with mr. pugliese.

in private.

sidenote: if we’re supposed to be keeping political views out of classrooms, mr. pugliese, wouldn’t that necessarily render your petition a violation of itself?

abolitionist Fri, May 28, 2010 10:15:20am

re: #7 darthstar

Gravity is a liberal conspiracy meant to keep people grounded in reality. If it was real, Jesus wouldn’t have been able to walk on the water, and ET wouldn’t have been able to keep Eliot’s bicycle off the ground for so long.
(Ellliiiooot…)

/ And clouds would fall down, along with the Sun, Moon and stars.

Killgore Trout Fri, May 28, 2010 10:16:04am

Image: 610x.jpg

Artist Vincent J.F. Huang’s sculpture Nemesis 2010 of U.S. President Barak Obama’s savaged head being eaten by a polar bear, stands at the Eight Members Club Gallery in London May 28, 2010. Huang’s exhibition attempts to highlight the issues of global warming.

Not even a very good likeness. I hate sloppy artists.

Kragar (Antichrist ) Fri, May 28, 2010 10:16:31am

re: #8 beekiller

Facts and evidence are the Devil’s handmaidens.

Mark Pennington Fri, May 28, 2010 10:17:32am

re: #8 beekiller

The way the majority of them interpret their overwhelming losses in the scholarly and legal forum is as follows:

“The world belongs to the devil.”

I kid you not. From my own parents (teachers) to public school principals and administrators, preachers, apologists, activists, and right-wing politicians, although they won’t say it publicly (at least not usually), this is seriously how many of them analyze their losses in the public forum. I have heard it literally dozens if not hundreds of time throughout my life.

Since some Bible passages describe the world as being utterly evil and under Satan’s direct control (e.g., Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:12, 1 John 5:19), creationists and fundamentalists believe that Satan himself is behind the pro-evolution science taught in American high schools, and literally pulled some sort of diabolical strings to get verdicts. No matter what kind of legal, scientific, or logical evidence argues against their position, they will NEVER change their mind…because it’s all a diabolical conspiracy.

correction: parent not parents. My mother is an open-minded saint who is solely responsible for me not growing up to be a wingnut.

Liberal Classic Fri, May 28, 2010 10:18:24am

“Teach the Controversy” has come to social studies and history, as well. :(

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:21:05am

re: #10 Kefirah

there is “not evidence to support it?”

i know a couple hundred polar bears who’d like to speak with mr. pugliese.

in private.

sidenote: if we’re supposed to be keeping political views out of classrooms, mr. pugliese, wouldn’t that necessarily render your petition a violation of itself?

The polar bears would say anything. Their arguments would consist of swats from their powerful front paws. Then they’d eat him. But he’s so toxic-stupid I think they’d puke him up again.

Gus Fri, May 28, 2010 10:24:39am

Balanced Education for Everyone is a project of:

Independent Women’s Forum:

That receives funding from (top 10):

Sarah Scaife Foundation $1,675,000
Brady Education Foundation 1,604,000
Randolph Foundation 1,559,000
John M. Olin Foundation 776,000
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation 490,000
Castle Rock Foundation 300,000
Carthage Foundation* 300,000
Jaquelin Hume Foundation 265,000
William H. Donner Foundation 200,000
Scaife Family Foundation* 100,000

Spider Mensch Fri, May 28, 2010 10:29:02am

I would hope this crack pottery would never make it past school boards, school adminstrators and the like, PTA’s etc….but it is an important red flag for any parent…look at your kids school books. help them with their homework. Ask your kid what he did at school today? know your kids teacher, get involved…don’t assume anything..it is your child! be a concerned parent.

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:30:47am

re: #8 beekiller

The way the majority of them interpret their overwhelming losses in the scholarly and legal forum is as follows:

“The world belongs to the devil.”

I kid you not. From my own parents (teachers) to public school principals and administrators, preachers, apologists, activists, and right-wing politicians, although they won’t say it publicly (at least not usually), this is seriously how many of them analyze their losses in the public forum. I have heard it literally dozens if not hundreds of time throughout my life.

Since some Bible passages describe the world as being utterly evil and under Satan’s direct control (e.g., Ephesians 2:2, Ephesians 6:12, 1 John 5:19), creationists and fundamentalists believe that Satan himself is behind the pro-evolution science taught in American high schools, and literally pulled some sort of diabolical strings to get verdicts. No matter what kind of legal, scientific, or logical evidence argues against their position, they will NEVER change their mind…because it’s all a diabolical conspiracy.

Please allow me to introduce myself:

Youtube Video

Cannadian Club Akbar Fri, May 28, 2010 10:31:02am

I thought I was suppose to learn about Jesus in science class.
/really? Need I?

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:31:52am

re: #16 Dark_Falcon

The polar bears would not say anything. Their arguments would consist of swats from their powerful front paws. Then they’d eat him. But he’s so toxic-stupid I think they’d puke him up again.

PIMF

abolitionist Fri, May 28, 2010 10:35:14am

Light is a wave phenomenon. Light comes in lumps (quanta). Teach the controversy.

subsailor68 Fri, May 28, 2010 10:35:55am

re: #18 Spider Mensch

I would hope this crack pottery would never make it past school boards, school adminstrators and the like, PTA’s etc…but it is an important red flag for any parent…look at your kids school books. help them with their homework. Ask your kid what he did at school today? know your kids teacher, get involved…don’t assume anything..it is your child! be a concerned parent.

Hi Spider. When I was in grammar school back in the…..well, never mind….my mother made it a point to invite my teacher over for tea very early in each year. She wanted to make sure my teacher knew she had an ally - and to call her if I was messing up. Mother was also big in the PTA, baked cookies for parties and so on, and made sure she got to know the principal, Miss St. Helens (no “Ms.” for that lady!)

You’re post was spot on for how things were done back then, and it’s spot on now.

Gus Fri, May 28, 2010 10:36:26am

Here’s the “Lesson Plan” from Balanced Education for Everyone.

Warning to those with slow internet connections — this is a 14MB PDF file:

[Link: balanced-ed.org…]

They focus on three topics:

1. Global Warming
2. Malaria
3. Renewable Fuels

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 10:36:39am

From the quoted article:

“A survey showed two out of three kids were coming home thinking their world is going to melt away and all the polar bears are going to die,” Laura Kindregan told the board.

That is why it is imperative that children are taught the truth about climate change. It is makes no sense to ban teaching about climate change just because children currently do not understand it.

subsailor68 Fri, May 28, 2010 10:36:45am

re: #23 subsailor68

Oops! You’re = Your.

Walter L. Newton Fri, May 28, 2010 10:39:30am

This part of their position is stupid… “for keeping the teaching of humans’ influence on global warming out of science classes.”

No way.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:40:14am

re: #22 abolitionist

Light is a wave phenomenon. Light comes in lumps (quanta). Teach the controversy.

Light = Lucifer.

We need to bring back the Dark Ages.

darthstar Fri, May 28, 2010 10:42:06am

re: #8 beekiller

“The world belongs to the devil.”

Yes, but Hell is for children…

Youtube Video

Fozzie Bear Fri, May 28, 2010 10:44:04am

Pugliese, a 32-year-old Grand Junction attorney and activist in Tea Party and conservative Republican groups, also presented a petition with 600 signatures demanding Mesa County schools keep political views out of classrooms.

Irony.

Spider Mensch Fri, May 28, 2010 10:44:09am

re: #23 subsailor68

Hi Spider. When I was in grammar school back in the…well, never mind…my mother made it a point to invite my teacher over for tea very early in each year. She wanted to make sure my teacher knew she had an ally - and to call her if I was messing up. Mother was also big in the PTA, baked cookies for parties and so on, and made sure she got to know the principal, Miss St. Helens (no “Ms.” for that lady!)

You’re post was spot on for how things were done back then, and it’s spot on now.

Thanks..it’s good to know who your kid spends 7 hours a day with.

abolitionist Fri, May 28, 2010 10:44:35am

re: #28 ryannon

Light = Lucifer.

We need to bring back the Dark Ages.

“And G-d said Let Lucifer be there.”
:)

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:45:35am

re: #25 Reginald Perrin

From the quoted article:

That is why it is imperative that children are taught the truth about climate change. It is makes no sense to ban teaching about climate change just because children currently do not understand it.

Not for totalists like them. They see a flaw in the other side’s presentation as a reason to throw out everything the other side says. Why keep any of it, since those who oppose such totalists are to be considered evil?

brennant Fri, May 28, 2010 10:47:43am

…and the plunge into the next dark age continues…

Gus Fri, May 28, 2010 10:50:30am

re: #24 Gus 802

Here’s the “Lesson Plan” from Balanced Education for Everyone.

Warning to those with slow internet connections — this is a 14MB PDF file:

[Link: balanced-ed.org…]

They focus on three topics:

1. Global Warming
2. Malaria
3. Renewable Fuels

On page 3 of this Lesson Plan you’ll find that one of their noted experts is Patrick Michaels:

Patrick J. Michaels (born February 15, 1950) is a climatologist, an American Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute and a former Professor of Environmental Sciences from the University of Virginia where he worked from 1980-2007. He earned his Ph.D. in ecological climatology from the University of Wisconsin at Madison in 1979. He is a past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, and a past author and expert reviewer for the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

SNIP

Intermountain Rural Electric Association

On July 27, 2006 ABC News reported that a Colorado energy cooperative, the Intermountain Rural Electric Association, had given Michaels $100,000. The report noted that the cooperative has a vested interest in opposing mandatory carbon dioxide caps, a situation that raised conflict of interest concerns.

State climatologist

In 1980, then Governor of Virginia John Dalton appointed Michaels to the position of Virginia State Climatologist. In 2006 the office of the current Governor, Timothy M. Kaine, stated they no longer had responsibility for appointing the position, and that, in the year 2000, that role had passed to the University of Virginia, through its certification of the American Association of State Climatologists. Michaels was asked to “avoid any conflict of interest or appearance thereof by scrupulously avoiding the use of the title of ‘state climatologist’ in connection with any outside activities or private consulting endeavors.” Michaels later confirmed he had resigned from the position.

tigger2005 Fri, May 28, 2010 10:52:18am

(Titter) Silly scientist, don’t you know we don’t believe in gravity or relativity either? The Bible doesn’t say anything about that stuff.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I have to make my cattle striped by putting up striped sticks for them to look at. Ah, Bible science!

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 10:52:36am

re: #32 abolitionist

“And G-d said Let Lucifer be there.”
:)

Give Him credit for changing his mind and banishing Light.

Wait a minute, this is getting crazy.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 10:53:35am

re: #14 beekiller

Yea for momma!!!

I’m very confused. I’m trying to grasp the concept, but is Global Warming something Jesus preached against, you know, way back in the 1st century? I mean if you think the world belongs to the devil, then why are your kids in public school to begin with? I would think they’d be in parochial school.

They remind me of the Jihadists. How long before they start blowing people up who don’t agree with them?

Kefirah Fri, May 28, 2010 10:55:56am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

some of them already do. the method may be slightly different [suicide jackets vs. car bombs or death.by.cop], but they already do.

and that’s terrifying.

Walter L. Newton Fri, May 28, 2010 10:56:52am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

Yea for momma!!!

I’m very confused. I’m trying to grasp the concept, but is Global Warming something Jesus preached against, you know, way back in the 1st century? I mean if you think the world belongs to the devil, then why are your kids in public school to begin with? I would think they’d be in parochial school.

They remind me of the Jihadists. How long before they start blowing people up who don’t agree with them?

They do it on a daily basis.

Walter L. Newton Fri, May 28, 2010 10:57:05am

re: #39 Kefirah

some of them already do. the method may be slightly different [suicide jackets vs. car bombs or death.by.cop], but they already do.

and that’s terrifying.

Barf.

Summer Seale Fri, May 28, 2010 10:57:10am

Next up: The Tea Party puts forward school board proposals to teach that Germ Theory is actually a liberal lie. “We all know that Jews and Saracens poison wells which is what really causes disease!”, Mr. Thickhead Moronus said yesterday at the school board meeting to rousing applause and cheers from all within.

In the meantime, a local county ordinance has been passed outlawing all uses of what the Tea Party refers to as “Modern Medicine” as being unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers were unaware of these evil drugs which are un-biblical in nature and made to sway innocents towards the dark powers of Lucifer.

And after the commercial break: A witch burning gone awry? Stay tuned and see for yourselves!

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 10:57:39am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

They do it on a daily basis.

That you Tavis?

(Tavis can be wrong once in awhile.)

Walter L. Newton Fri, May 28, 2010 11:00:32am

re: #43 marjoriemoon

That you Tavis?

(Tavis can be wrong once in awhile.)

You know… I don’t even know who he is, never heard of him until this recent comment of his. Just that comment alone foregoes any interest in anything that man may have to say. I wouldn’t give two shits if he was the new Buddha. It’s asinine statements like that that make me scratch shit heads like him right off my list.

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:00:34am

BBIAB

Gus Fri, May 28, 2010 11:01:55am

Late American history will show that overall it was based on series of publicity stunts conducted by public and private individuals.

/Just a thought.

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:02:22am

re: #42 Summer

updinged for “Saracens”. heh.

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:02:50am

re: #43 marjoriemoon

That you Tavis?

(Tavis can be wrong once in awhile.)

who’s tavis?

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:03:36am

re: #40 Walter L. Newton

They do it on a daily basis.

But nowhere to be seen on today’s Google News. Lots about Pakistan and India, though. Which figures: we all know that Google News is selected by Zionist computers.

Gus Fri, May 28, 2010 11:05:14am

At first BP said Top Kill would take several hours. Later that was extended to 24 hours and then again to 48 hours.

Now it has been extended to possibly take “over the weekend.”

It’s possible that this has morphed into another publicity stunt.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:05:32am

re: #48 Aceofwhat?

who’s tavis?

He’s Cletus’s brother.

sagehen Fri, May 28, 2010 11:05:34am

re: #42 Summer

In the meantime, a local county ordinance has been passed outlawing all uses of what the Tea Party refers to as “Modern Medicine” as being unconstitutional. The Founding Fathers were unaware of these evil drugs which are un-biblical in nature and made to sway innocents towards the dark powers of Lucifer.

I almost wish they would.

And then I’d give them some of those special Conquistadore Blankets (tm)….

Mad Al-Jaffee Fri, May 28, 2010 11:08:25am

re: #48 Aceofwhat?

who’s tavis?

Tavis Bickle. NYC cab driver and vigilante.

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:08:57am

re: #53 Mad Al-Jaffee

Tavis Bickle. NYC cab driver and vigilante.

sure, but does he shower/

abolitionist Fri, May 28, 2010 11:10:33am

re: #38 marjoriemoon

[snip] They remind me of the Jihadists. How long before they start blowing people up who don’t agree with them?

From Wikipedia, it was over 5 centuries ago.

Earliest known written formula for gunpowder, from the Chinese Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD.

Gradually the importance of Constantinople increased. After the shock of the Battle of Adrianople in 378, in which the emperor Valens with the flower of the Roman armies was destroyed by the Visigoths within a few days’ march, the city looked to its defenses, and Theodosius II built in 413–414 the 18 metre (60 ft) tall triple-wall fortifications which were never to be breached until the coming of gunpowder.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

1453 - Fall of Constantinople
The siege began with heavy Ottoman artillery firing at the city’s walls …

reine.de.tout Fri, May 28, 2010 11:10:47am

re: #25 Reginald Perrin

From the quoted article:

That is why it is imperative that children are taught the truth about climate change. It is makes no sense to ban teaching about climate change just because children currently do not understand it.

Well - having had a kid go through school, there are good reasons why kids don’t fully understand things. I know there are times when kids are not yet mature enough, or have the perspective necessary to fully understand things. Some things should either wait ‘til they’re older, OR the teachers need to learn to put some perspective on things for the younger ones, because they DO come home panicked at times. And it’s difficult sometimes to deal with, because they believe the teacher more than they believe you.

I can recall, when at my daughter’s school they talked about the dangers of smoking, my daughter came home in tears because she was convinced her dad and I were going to keel over and die at any moment now. And she was scared to death.

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:10:55am

re: #43 marjoriemoon

That you Tavis?

(Tavis can be wrong once in awhile.)

Oh, Tavis Smiley. That guy is dumber than a bag full of hammers.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:12:14am

re: #53 Mad Al-Jaffee

Tavis Bickle. NYC cab driver and vigilante.

Oh yes - the Tavis in Scorsese’s “Tacky Driver.”

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:13:45am

re: #44 Walter L. Newton

You know… I don’t even know who he is, never heard of him until this recent comment of his. Just that comment alone foregoes any interest in anything that man may have to say. I wouldn’t give two shits if he was the new Buddha. It’s asinine statements like that that make me scratch shit heads like him right off my list.

He’s on the Sunday morning talk circuit sometimes and he has his own radio show. He also dated a friend of mine once. (I know that has nothing to do with anything, but I met him at a party….). He’s a liberal.

To be fair, I didn’t hear the whole interview with Hirisi Ali (I think that was her), so I’d like to get the whole thing.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:13:59am

re: #57 Aceofwhat?

Oh, Tavis Smiley. That guy is dumber than a bag full of hammers.

He is not!

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:15:15am

re: #55 abolitionist

From Wikipedia, it was over 5 centuries ago.

Earliest known written formula for gunpowder, from the Chinese Wujing Zongyao of 1044 AD.

Gradually the importance of Constantinople increased. After the shock of the Battle of Adrianople in 378, in which the emperor Valens with the flower of the Roman armies was destroyed by the Visigoths within a few days’ march, the city looked to its defenses, and Theodosius II built in 413–414 the 18 metre (60 ft) tall triple-wall fortifications which were never to be breached until the coming of gunpowder.
[Link: en.wikipedia.org…]

1453 - Fall of Constantinople
The siege began with heavy Ottoman artillery firing at the city’s walls …

I’m not following your train of thought.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:16:25am

re: #60 marjoriemoon

He is not!

“Is! Is not! Is! Is not! Is! Is not!” Doh!

- Homer Simpson moment.

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 11:17:08am

The Independent Women’s Forum has been around for a while, is heavily funded by the Scaifes, and has had on its board the usual subjects: Lynne Cheney, Larry Kudlow, and so forth.

Apparently the true Patriots over at Resistnet like them.

Essentially, the IWF looks like the AEI, with lipstick.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:17:43am

re: #62 ryannon

“Is! Is not! Is! Is not! Is! Is not!” Doh!

- Homer Simpson moment.

I’ve grown fond of my friend Ace, but Tavis Smiley is not stupid. He may not agree with what he said, but he is not a stupid man.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:18:37am

re: #64 marjoriemoon

No offence meant - wasn’t taking sides.

Jaerik Fri, May 28, 2010 11:18:58am

“Teach the controversy” is exposed as laughably transparent when you try to teach the controversy as interpreted by anyone other than Christians.

I’m pretty sure that Hindu fundamentalists have their own interpretation of evolution and global warming as well, but good luck suggesting they teach that controversy in schools.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:19:08am

re: #65 ryannon

No offence meant - wasn’t taking sides.

I know. You were being silly. I’m down with that :)

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:21:42am

re: #64 marjoriemoon

I’ve grown fond of my friend Ace, but Tavis Smiley is not stupid. He may not agree with what he said, but he is not a stupid man.

you’re a good sport;)

did you like it when he got so whiny in 2008 that, when Obama wouldn’t attend his little ‘conference’ because of a prior scheduling conflict, he wouldn’t let Michelle speak in Barack’s place?

want more?

;)

Fozzie Bear Fri, May 28, 2010 11:21:45am

They should also “teach the controversy” regarding whether Jesus ever existed in schools. I’m sure they would be all for it.

ryannon Fri, May 28, 2010 11:22:14am

re: #67 marjoriemoon

I know. You were being silly. I’m down with that :)

“Silly” is my middle name. Helps me preserve my sanity.

Spare O'Lake Fri, May 28, 2010 11:23:31am

“Pugliese and three other people who spoke against global-warming education said that if the subject is going to be taught, the “other side” should be presented so that students aren’t subjected to a frightening untruth.”

Notice that the AGW deniers do not specify what “the other side” of the subject is. This to me speaks volumes.

Having said that, the issue of whether something should not be taught to children because it is too scary, is quite interesting. I can see the wisdom in teachers taking care not to terrorize young children, but such concerns can probably be better dealt with by using sensitive and careful teaching techniques rather than by outright censorship.

abolitionist Fri, May 28, 2010 11:25:29am

re: #61 marjoriemoon

Sorry, apparently you meant when are the christian theocrats going to start blowing up people they don’t agree with.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:28:16am

re: #68 Aceofwhat?

you’re a good sport;)

did you like it when he got so whiny in 2008 that, when Obama wouldn’t attend his little ‘conference’ because of a prior scheduling conflict, he wouldn’t let Michelle speak in Barack’s place?

want more?

;)

I don’t follow Tavis too much, no. You have a link to that?

webevintage Fri, May 28, 2010 11:30:49am

Pugliese and three other people who spoke against global-warming education said that if the subject is going to be taught, the “other side” should be presented so that students aren’t subjected to a frightening untruth.

Think of the children!!!!1111!!!
/

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:30:50am

re: #72 abolitionist

Sorry, apparently you meant when are the christian theocrats going to start blowing up people they don’t agree with.

We were talking about Christian theocrats, but I’m still not understanding what some narrow minded religious people have to do with the Chinese inventing gunpowder.

Religion extremism in any form is not healthy for children, flowers or other living things.

mkelly Fri, May 28, 2010 11:33:47am

re: #25 Reginald Perrin

From the quoted article:

That is why it is imperative that children are taught the truth about climate change. It is makes no sense to ban teaching about climate change just because children currently do not understand it.

You are correct but the rub is “taught the truth about climate change”.

Four and a half billion years of climate change or only the last 100 years?
That CO2 causes warming or that the earth has warmed and cooled independent of CO2?

Aceofwhat? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:35:49am

re: #73 marjoriemoon

I don’t follow Tavis too much, no. You have a link to that?

anything for you, good lady!

[Link: blogs.suntimes.com…]

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 11:36:10am

re: #76 mkelly

Talking points… just creationist-style talking points.

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 11:46:33am

re: #77 Aceofwhat?

anything for you, good lady!

[Link: blogs.suntimes.com…]

Ok, maybe he is an idiot LOL

I like Mary Mitchell quite a bit. Now go find me something so I can hate her! LOL

Cato the Elder Fri, May 28, 2010 12:11:53pm

It’s just fine for parents and religious schools to scare the crap out of kids with hellfire and the apocalypse calypso and Teh Rapture Rag, though.

And teach them that having sex with your GF/BF will make God mad and jacking/jilling off will make you blind.

mkelly Fri, May 28, 2010 12:22:53pm

re: #78 freetoken

Talking points… just creationist-style talking points.

I’m not sure how you come up with that. Don’t you think the earth’s climte has changed many time in the 4.5 billion years it has been around? I do.

It has been warmer than now. It has been colder than now. Do you deny that? I don’t.

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 12:24:29pm

re: #81 mkelly

Because you are treating climatology exactly in the same manner that creationists treat evolutionary biology - my erecting straw-man arguments and not addressing the real science.

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 12:25:21pm

re: #82 freetoken

PIMF “by erecting”

What, me worry? Fri, May 28, 2010 12:31:12pm

re: #81 mkelly

I’m not sure how you come up with that. Don’t you think the earth’s climte has changed many time in the 4.5 billion years it has been around? I do.

It has been warmer than now. It has been colder than now. Do you deny that? I don’t.

I’m no climate expert, but it’s not about the globe warming and cooling in a natural way over billions of years. It’s about the man made effect on the warming of the planet because of industrialization. We’ve sped up the natural process to dangerous levels.

But if you’re a creationist, you don’t believe the world is 4.5 billion years old anyway, so maybe that’s why they don’t believe in global warming. You know, other than being morons.

Fozzie Bear Fri, May 28, 2010 12:32:12pm

re: #81 mkelly

I’m sure you are just asking questions.

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 12:35:05pm

re: #84 marjoriemoon

I’m no climate expert, but it’s not about the globe warming and cooling in a natural way over billions of years. It’s about the man made effect on the warming of the planet because of industrialization. We’ve sped up the natural process to dangerous levels.

Exactly, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

I don’t know if MKELLY is a creationist, but he argues like one.

No climatologist has ever argued that Earth’s past didn’t have cooler and warmer periods. Indeed, the only reason MKELLY even knows enough about Earth’s past climates to write that they were cooler or warmer is because climatologists, the very same ones that study AGW, study those periods in Earth’s climate also!

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 12:42:01pm

re: #84 marjoriemoon

I’m no climate expert, but it’s not about the globe warming and cooling in a natural way over billions of years. It’s about the man made effect on the warming of the planet because of industrialization. We’ve sped up the natural process to dangerous levels.

But if you’re a creationist, you don’t believe the world is 4.5 billion years old anyway, so maybe that’s why they don’t believe in global warming. You know, other than being morons.

So you want to teach a very limited idea of climate change. When it changed from warm to cold 500 million years ago you would skip that? When the climate changed from ice age to warm roughly 100000 years ago you would leave that out? When the Younger Dryas happened you would ignore it?

Achilles Tang Fri, May 28, 2010 12:42:59pm

re: #81 mkelly

I’m not sure how you come up with that. Don’t you think the earth’s climte has changed many time in the 4.5 billion years it has been around? I do.

It has been warmer than now. It has been colder than now. Do you deny that? I don’t.

Don’t be a jackass; at least not here.

The issue is not when, but why, and why now.

Tigger2005 Fri, May 28, 2010 12:43:15pm

Read passages from the Necronomicon and sacrifice babies on the altar, and you MAY be one of the lucky ones who is eaten first!

re: #2 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

The rising of the ancient city of Ryleh is opening gas pockets, altering the Earth’s atmosphere, making it a more suitable habitat for our new master’s upon their awakening.

For next “teach the controversy” segment, Teabaggers: born stupid or do they work at it.

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 12:47:48pm

re: #86 freetoken

Exactly, you’ve hit the nail on the head.

I don’t know if MKELLY is a creationist, but he argues like one.

No climatologist has ever argued that Earth’s past didn’t have cooler and warmer periods. Indeed, the only reason MKELLY even knows enough about Earth’s past climates to write that they were cooler or warmer is because climatologists, the very same ones that study AGW, study those periods in Earth’s climate also!

You are incorrect. I know of the past earth history which includes climate change from geologists.

And you miss the point. If schools are going to teach climate change when should they begin. I say start from the begining 4.5 billion years ago.

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 12:49:02pm

re: #87 MKelly

Yup, you really are arguing like a creationist. You seem to think that adding a few technical sounding terms will strengthen your argument.

Well guess what, the 100,000yr cycle in the preceding the Holocene (and indeed the 40,000 yr cycle that preceded those), the Younger Dryas (and various other anomalies in the last glaciation-interglacial cycle) are not only not evidence against AGW but support it!

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 12:50:19pm

re: #90 MKelly

You are doing very much what creationists do - obfuscate.

You may or may not be a creationist, but you certainly picked up a tactic of theirs.

Charles Johnson Fri, May 28, 2010 12:50:22pm

Oh brother.

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 12:52:04pm

re: #88 Naso Tang

Don’t be a jackass; at least not here.

The issue is not when, but why, and why now.

You still can’t help yourself at calling names.

And it is exactly the issue. If the earth has warmed and cooled at times in its past indepentent of CO2 then that blows the heck out of the alarmism now.

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 12:54:18pm

re: #94 MKelly

You still can’t help yourself at calling names.

And it is exactly the issue. If the earth has warmed and cooled at times in its past indepentent of CO2 then that blows the heck out of the alarmism now.

No, it doesn’t. There’s more than one way for the planet to warm and cool, and CO2 emissions are one the ways it can warm. Your logic is flawed.

Tigger2005 Fri, May 28, 2010 12:56:25pm

re: #94 MKelly

You still can’t help yourself at calling names.

And it is exactly the issue. If the earth has warmed and cooled at times in its past indepentent of CO2 then that blows the heck out of the alarmism now.

No, it doesn’t. The evidence is that the warming is happening RAPIDLY, and AS A RESULT OF human industrial activity.

Warming/cooling periods in the past happened over a longer period of time and people had time to adjust. In any case, there were not billions of people on the planet like there are now.

The climate changes occuring as a result of global warming will cause massive famines and population disruptions. But, nothing to be concerned about, right?

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 12:58:47pm

re: #91 freetoken

Yup, you really are arguing like a creationist. You seem to think that adding a few technical sounding terms will strengthen your argument.

Well guess what, the 100,000yr cycle in the preceding the Holocene (and indeed the 40,000 yr cycle that preceded those), the Younger Dryas (and various other anomalies in the last glaciation-interglacial cycle) are not only not evidence against AGW but support it!

I don’t care if you think it strengthens the argument. Teach it.

re: #92 freetoken

You are doing very much what creationists do - obfuscate.

You may or may not be a creationist, but you certainly picked up a tactic of theirs.

I am not sure how I am obfuscating. Please explain.

Fozzie Bear Fri, May 28, 2010 1:01:54pm

Mkelly, you can’t just selectively ignore a massive amount of evidence and then act like are onto something. If you wish to draw the hypothesis of AGW into question, you need to
A: provide evidence that directly counters the prevalent body of evidence
and/or
B: provide an alternative explanation for observations

Just ignoring the current model and observations (i.e., data) isn’t an argument. It’s a smokescreen.

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 1:04:02pm

re: #97 MKelly

GAZE

100

freetoken Fri, May 28, 2010 1:04:35pm

re: #97 MKelly

In schools children do science in 45 or 50 minute segments, maybe once a day, maybe only a few times a week. In that time usually one idea only is taught per class. There simply is not enough time to teach in depth.

This is true of evolution, and it is true of AGW, and everything else taught in those classes.

AGW is well supported science. It should be taught. It will also be significant burden for future generations, and thus it should not only be taught but put in the curriculum in several places.

Children in school do not learn contemporary population genetics, but they do learn about Mendel. Children learn about continental drift, but they do not learn rheology. In like manner, children ought to be taught AGW, though they will not have the time to learn the ins and outs of paleoclimatology and atmospheric physics.

101

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:06:54pm

re: #95 Dark_Falcon

No, it doesn’t. There’s more than one way for the planet to warm and cool, and CO2 emissions are one the ways it can warm. Your logic is flawed.

In logic for something to be logically true the answer must be necessary and sufficient. If in the past the earth has warmed and cooled independent of CO2 then CO2 is neither necessary nor sufficient as an answer this time.

All atmospheric gases dissipate heat. There is no application you can name where on its own a gas imparts more heat to an object.

102

Fozzie Bear Fri, May 28, 2010 1:11:12pm

re: #101 MKelly

In logic for something to be logically true the answer must be necessary and sufficient. If in the past the earth has warmed and cooled independent of CO2 then CO2 is neither necessary nor sufficient as an answer this time.

All atmospheric gases dissipate heat. There is no application you can name where on its own a gas imparts more heat to an object.

Lets play a game of name that logical fallacy, shall we?

Allow me to illustrate with an example: “If in the past a man has died independently of bullets, then bullets are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the death of JFK.”

Do you see why that is a moronic statement? Or shall I continue?

103

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 1:13:48pm

re: #94 MKelly

You still can’t help yourself at calling names.

And it is exactly the issue. If the earth has warmed and cooled at times in its past indepentent of CO2 then that blows the heck out of the alarmism now.

How so?
Man could light fires before matches were invented.
Using your pretzel logic, there are no fires caused by matches because there were fires before matches.

Just because there was climate change independent of man’s influence in the past does not alter the fact that the change in climate experienced in the past hundred years is mainly caused by CO2 released into the atmosphere through the burning of fossil fuels.

104

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 1:17:10pm

re: #101 MKelly

In logic for something to be logically true the answer must be necessary and sufficient. If in the past the earth has warmed and cooled independent of CO2 then CO2 is neither necessary nor sufficient as an answer this time.

All atmospheric gases dissipate heat. There is no application you can name where on its own a gas imparts more heat to an object.

You undermine your position with your own words (the ones I have bolded). The AGW argument is not that CO2 warms the planet in and of itself, but that it traps solar radiation in the atmosphere that otherwise would escape back into space. My point still stands.

105

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:20:14pm

re: #100 freetoken

In schools children do science in 45 or 50 minute segments, maybe once a day, maybe only a few times a week. In that time usually one idea only is taught per class. There simply is not enough time to teach in depth.

This is true of evolution, and it is true of AGW, and everything else taught in those classes.

AGW is well supported science. It should be taught. It will also be significant burden for future generations, and thus it should not only be taught but put in the curriculum in several places.

Children in school do not learn contemporary population genetics, but they do learn about Mendel. Children learn about continental drift, but they do not learn rheology. In like manner, children ought to be taught AGW, though they will not have the time to learn the ins and outs of paleoclimatology and atmospheric physics.

Fair enough. But where do you begin. If you don’t want to start at the begining as I do then where would you start? Two million years ago when the ice ages started? When?

106

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:23:44pm

re: #102 Fozzie Bear

Lets play a game of name that logical fallacy, shall we?

Allow me to illustrate with an example: “If in the past a man has died independently of bullets, then bullets are neither necessary nor sufficient to explain the death of JFK.”

Do you see why that is a moronic statement? Or shall I continue?

Sorry bad one. You’re are specifically blaming CO2 for this temperature increase. So “If in the past a man has died from a bullet then bullets are necessary and sufficient to explain the wounds and the death of JFK.”

107

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:26:26pm

re: #104 Dark_Falcon

You undermine your position with your own words (the ones I have bolded). The AGW argument is not that CO2 warms the planet in and of itself, but that it traps solar radiation in the atmosphere that otherwise would escape back into space. My point still stands.

IF it “trapped” the radiation then the radiation cannot heat anything else cause the CO2 has it trapped. Your point is not valid.

And by the way for a point of clarity. CO2 does not trap solar radiation as you state.

108

Achilles Tang Fri, May 28, 2010 1:27:42pm

re: #94 MKelly

You still can’t help yourself at calling names.

And it is exactly the issue. If the earth has warmed and cooled at times in its past indepentent of CO2 then that blows the heck out of the alarmism now.

I call an ass an ass, and you sir, are one. There is more than one possible cause for climate changes, yet you don’t seem to grasp that.

109

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:27:59pm

Work day over. Leaving now. TTFN.

110

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:28:02pm

re: #101 MKelly

You again?

Look, I am not actually annoyed at you, and I suppose that I can admire your persistence, but not when you are so persistent about refusing to learn basic physics. I would respectfully ask that you take a reality check.

Science arguments are not of the form: you make a false claim and then have debunked, only for you to pretend that never happened and then move on to another false claim. This is simple stuff that you for some reason of mental block you simply refuse to process.

I am begging you to process the following facts:

In the past, orbital variations have been one of the primary drivers of climate shifts. This is very well established and no one disputes this. This is in fact so well understood, because we actually can calculate these variations very well - and they sync up precisely with the geological record of climate shifts. We can say with great certainty that we are not in an orbital variation that would cause warming. In fact, the orbital variations are such that we should be cooling.

If we should be cooling as far as that is concerned, the fact that we are warming must come from a different source. Your arguments about orbital cycles are thus moot - except in that they only strengthen the certainty that the cause of the warming is anthropomorphic.

As to gases cooling, you need to understand how heat works. Heat is kinetic energy. However, the internal structure of the substance in question effects how that kinetic energy gets expressed. Does the molecule vibrate, or rotate or have a part of it vibrate or rotate, does it translate etc… Does an incoming photon excite a mode in the bonds etc…? This is ultimately why different substances have different specific heats. Different gases do this in different ways. More importantly to the case at hand, different substances absorb and radiate light at different rates and in different bands. This is all subject to Quantum Mechanics. These things together mean that energy transfers are much more complicated than you think. Your arguments along these lines, are characteristically silly.

Many here have tried to explain basic thermodynamics to you many times. I am not certain what it would take for you to actually sit down and learn the subject before misquoting and confabulating false and silly statements from denier blogs. However, I beg you to go to the library and get any competent physics one text - Haliday and Resnick is a standard, and read the chapters on thermodynamics before commenting further and embarrassing yourself more.

111

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:29:05pm

re: #105 MKelly

Fair enough. But where do you begin. If you don’t want to start at the begining as I do then where would you start? Two million years ago when the ice ages started? When?

You start at the beginning of the current warming phase as an introduction. This started about 120 years ago.

112

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:29:14pm

re: #108 Naso Tang

I call an ass an ass, and you sir, are one. There is more than one possible cause for climate changes, yet you don’t seem to grasp that.

Actually I do know there are more than possible way for climates to change at that is the entire point. You don’t seem to grasp.

113

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:30:51pm

re: #107 MKelly

IF it “trapped” the radiation then the radiation cannot heat anything else cause the CO2 has it trapped. Your point is not valid.

And by the way for a point of clarity. CO2 does not trap solar radiation as you state.

It traps it and then re-radiates. Do you have Aspergers Syndrome making you insanely hyper literal, or are you simply stupid?

114

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:32:22pm

re: #69 Fozzie Bear

They should also “teach the controversy” regarding whether Jesus ever existed in schools. I’m sure they would be all for it.

Heh..

115

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:33:29pm

LVQ I have to leave as my work day has ended and I wish to start my Memorial Day (please remember the vets) weekend.

I still leave standing my invitation debate you on CO2 caused warming.

116

MKelly Fri, May 28, 2010 1:34:49pm

re: #113 LudwigVanQuixote

It traps it and then re-radiates. Do you have Aspergers Syndrome making you insanely hyper literal, or are you simply stupid?

He did not say that it is re-radiated.

117

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:35:15pm

re: #115 MKelly

LVQ I have to leave as my work day has ended and I wish to start my Memorial Day (please remember the vets) weekend.

I still leave standing my invitation debate you on CO2 caused warming.

The one you have lost about five times already? Are you just some sort of masochist, or merely an insane narcissist.

Did you even notice how your two arguments have been completely debunked?

Did you notice that you are wrong about how you think heat works (again!)? Did you notice that orbital variations should be causing a cooling right now?

118

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 1:35:21pm

re: #101 MKelly

All atmospheric gases dissipate heat. There is no application you can name where on its own a gas imparts more heat to an object.

That’s a poorly stuffed straw-man, nobody ever claimed other atmospheric gases don’t dissipate heat.

What makes greenhouse gases important relative to global warming is the ability of these gases to absorb IR radiated from the earth’s surface that would otherwise leave the atmosphere.

Mikey, here’s a hint, don’t get your science from Pajama Media, their science experts are quacks.

119

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:45:13pm

re: #107 MKelly

And by the way for a point of clarity. CO2 does not trap solar radiation as you state.

Really? Do photons have a tag on them saying that this IR photon came from the sun and that IR came from radiation after heating something downstairs?
Does CO2 distinguish those different tags? By what mechanism would it do this? The fact is that both of them are trapped and re-radiated by CO2 because no such labels on photons exist!

120

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 1:48:09pm

re: #116 MKelly

There’s that hyper-literalism again. Enjoy your Memorial Day BBQ under your cousin’s bridge, troll.

121

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 1:48:42pm

re: #117 LudwigVanQuixote

Did you even notice how your two arguments have been completely debunked?

MKelly doesn’t notice a lot of things, if it wasn’t for gravity it’s likely he wouldn’t be able to find the floor when getting out of bed.

122

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 1:51:29pm

re: #106 MKelly

Sorry bad one. You’re are specifically blaming CO2 for this temperature increase. So “If in the past a man has died from a bullet then bullets are necessary and sufficient to explain the wounds and the death of JFK.”

Well that and the fact that he actually died of bullet wounds. Or to use your silly analogy, that and the fact, that we actually see the increase in CO2 concentration and know that it must cause warming - as I have explained over and over, and we actually see temperature changes, migration patterns changing, the poles melting, weather patters shifting and everything else you would expect from a warming cycle when we have ruled out other causes.

We don’t say JFK died of a sword wound. We ruled out swords.

In other words it isn’t orbital variations/

We don’t say someone poisoned JFK.

In other words it isn’t a solar variation - in fact the sun has been abnormally quiet of late - we should be cooling because of that, yet we are not.

However, to further use your silly analogy, we might notice the huge amounts more CO2 in the air just like we might notice the bullet wounds.

123

Mad Prophet Ludwig Fri, May 28, 2010 2:00:23pm

By the way, Kudos to:

Marjoree,
Charles,
Freetoken,
DarkFalcon
Reginald Perrin,
Naso Tang

For trying so very hard and patiently to educate one who refuses to look at facts.

124

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 2:11:22pm

re: #123 LudwigVanQuixote

I have to at least give MKelly an E for effort, unlike Larry Reisinger who has refused to accept my challenge to a debate on climate change. I can’t understand why the science contributor for Pajamas Media is afraid to debate an ordinary blogger like me.

It can’t be a time issue, Reisinger appears to have plenty of time to spend stalking you and Charles.

125

Dark_Falcon Fri, May 28, 2010 2:35:24pm

re: #124 Reginald Perrin

I have to at least give MKelly an E for effort, unlike Larry Reisinger who has refused to accept my challenge to a debate on climate change. I can’t understand why the science contributor for Pajamas Media is afraid to debate an ordinary blogger like me.

It can’t be a time issue, Reisinger appears to have plenty of time to spend stalking you and Charles.

He’s afraid you’ll whip his ass. He’s throbbing already, and doesn’t want the level to rise:

Youtube Video

126

Reginald Perrin Fri, May 28, 2010 2:50:57pm

re: #125 Dark_Falcon

He’s afraid you’ll whip his ass.

He is afraid Ludwig is going to be lending me a hand.

Larry Reisinger is way out of his league, so the debate will never happen.
Meanwhile, Larry will keep doing what he does best….stalking Charles and Ludwig.

127

uninformed opinion Fri, May 28, 2010 9:26:45pm

I like when my town becomes a news story.

128

Elle Plater Sat, May 29, 2010 6:35:55am

Our own science institutions in Australia are debating about global warming so why teach it as fact. There is a debate and that is heathy. Unlike like evolution that has so much evidence for it, only blind faith could deny it. Climate Science on the other hand is a new science and a lot of conclusions are based on reading historical records which only go back 180 years at most. Most of the scientists that make up the largest oponents of AGW are from the sciences that study the earth over billions of years and don’t see anything out of the ordinary here.

It is so political that most of the research has a biased slant as does most of the reporting. For example there is so much at stake that some of the biggest advocates for Global Warming are set to make billions if carbon credits take off. Take Al Gore for example. Huge conflict of interest there not to mention hypocrisy. I’ve noticed Charles that you hate any criticism of Al Gore but honestly he is doing your cause no favours.

129

Dark_Falcon Sat, May 29, 2010 7:40:40am

re: #128 Elle Plater

Our own science institutions in Australia are debating about global warming so why teach it as fact. There is a debate and that is healthy. Unlike like evolution that has so much evidence for it, only blind faith could deny it. Climate Science on the other hand is a new science and a lot of conclusions are based on reading historical records which only go back 180 years at most. Most of the scientists that make up the largest opponents of AGW are from the sciences that study the earth over billions of years and don’t see anything out of the ordinary here.

It is so political that most of the research has a biased slant as does most of the reporting. For example there is so much at stake that some of the biggest advocates for Global Warming are set to make billions if carbon credits take off. Take Al Gore for example. Huge conflict of interest there not to mention hypocrisy. I’ve noticed Charles that you hate any criticism of Al Gore but honestly he is doing your cause no favours.

Baloney. Charles has always permitted criticism of anyone, so long as that criticism is regarding real wrongs or errors they have made or are making. What he doesn’t like is people using “criticism” to spread unfounded allegations or conspiracy theories. Al Gore is a political figure, not a boogy man. Come on over to the current thread, and I’ll be happy to debate you.

130

Elle Plater Sat, May 29, 2010 7:48:09am

re: #129 Dark_Falcon

Baloney. Charles has always permitted criticism of anyone, so long as that criticism is regarding real wrongs or errors they have made or are making. What he doesn’t like is people using “criticism” to spread unfounded allegations or conspiracy theories. Al Gore is a political figure, not a boogy man. Come on over to the current thread, and I’ll be happy to debate you.

I’d be happy to debateDark_Falcon but here down under it is heading towards 1:00am and I best be getting some sleep. Until next time…

131

Dark_Falcon Sat, May 29, 2010 7:50:37am

re: #130 Elle Plater

I’d be happy to debateDark_Falcon but here down under it is heading towards 1:00am and I best be getting some sleep. Until next time…

Good night, then. Sleep well.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

‘Teach the Controversy’ Comes to the Science of Global Warming

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud