# Portland school board bans books to brainwash kids.



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...tbooks-that-cast-doubt-on-climate-change.html

They banned books that question climate change. Good grief. They should be teaching critical thinking to kids, not brainwashing them. 

Banning books that question a theory is a clue that the theory is really an ideology, a political movement that requires unscientific methods to gain and retain support.


----------



## lonewolf (Jun 12, 2012)

Religious restraints is that why the use of logic & the principals of thought to gain truth in schools not used. Mystical thinking use of faith blind acceptance of ideas with out any sensory evidence is seen in Canada in catholic faith promoting schools. Faith is the opposite of reason.

The use of logic & reason not taught in schools just memorize & repeat.


----------



## tygrus (Mar 13, 2012)

Pluto said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/05/2...tbooks-that-cast-doubt-on-climate-change.html
> 
> They banned books that question climate change. Good grief. They should be teaching critical thinking to kids, not brainwashing them.
> 
> Banning books that question a theory is a clue that the theory is really an ideology, a political movement that requires unscientific methods to gain and retain support.


That simply tells me that the science is now established and no other points of view are valid, such as the same as the creation debate or flat earth or whatever.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

That's exactly correct. Books that question the theory of evolution should be similarly rejected.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

tygrus said:


> That simply tells me that the science is now established and no other points of view are valid, such as the same as the creation debate or flat earth or whatever.


In other words, you are saying "science is now established" is identically equivalent to truth? There is no difference in the certainty of being on the moon and coming back with a photograph to produce as evidence of a spherical earth, vs a bunch of data and computer models telling us what will happen in 50 years time?

Every once is a while, and granted it is much rarer in the modern age, something comes up in science that completely turns over the "truth". A recent example is the discovery about 20 years ago that ulcers have a bacterium basis that can be cured with antibiotics. I might have the details wrong, but it was quite a stunning revelation at the time. How does your thinking account for this?

BTW, I run with the whole climate change bit as a reasonable projection of what will happen. I am just not quite prepared to declare it absolute truth yet. Absent any first hand abilities to make an informed judgement (like I suspect every other person here) what alternative is there when 95 or 99% of people who are presumably skilled in the field say it is so?

I find it very upsetting when the best in a field with 10+ years education cannot come to 100% agreement on this. I think it either has to be that we graduate ~5% incompetent people at the Ph.D. level (and what does this say about your surgeon?), or there is room to keep the debate going. I find the latter more comforting, but I suspect the former is closer to the truth.

hboy43


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

There actually is a VERY close 100% agreement in it *FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH AN ASSESSMENT.*.

The VAST majority of those that don't are stupid geologist, engineers and politicians (see donald trump for example) who really don't know what they're talking about.

just like evolution. it is 100% confirmed that it's true by people who actually know what they are talking about. Idiotic religious zealots are holdouts of course.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Einstein's theories are still open to criticism. No physicist would say 'the science is settled'. Same with Darwin. Same with Sir Isaac Newton. No scientist ever says 'the science is settled and no more research or criticism will be permitted'.

That is the statement of a pope or a dictator. The Catholic Church banned books to protect the faithful from new ideas like evolution (before they accepted evolution as true). Science is never settled, only religion ever claims to have pure truth.

The banning of criticism is the surest sign that a theory is flawed and cannot stand on its own.

When A Third Becomes 97 Percent: A Con That Changed the Western World

by Steven Capozzola21 May 20161,018

You’ve probably heard that 97 percent of scientists say global warming is real. Of course, that in itself is a meaningless statement, since no one disputes that the earth has warmed by roughly 0.8 degrees Celsius over the past century or so.

But the “97 percent of scientists believe in global warming” mantra became gospel on May 16, 2013, when President Obama tweeted “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree: #climate change is real, man-made, and dangerous.”

What the president was referring to was a 2013 paper by the University of Queensland’s John Cook. In his research, Cook studied 11,994 papers published between 1991 and 2011 that mentioned the search words “global warming” and “global climate change.”

Guess what Cook actually found? Only 32.6 percent of the papers endorsed the view of anthropogenic (man-made) global warming. But of that group, 97 percent said that “recent warming is mostly man-made.”

And so, by a nice sleight-of-hand obfuscation, the great “97 percent consensus” was born.

Don’t believe me? Check out the actual paper, or the abstract, or the original article. In fact, let’s just say thank goodness that the originals are still posted online. Typically, when someone pulls off a con of such massive, world-wide proportions, they subsequently burn the evidence to cover their tracks.


Still don’t believe me? Here’s the actual, posted statement:

We find that 66.4 percent of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6 percent endorsed AGW, 0.7 percent rejected AGW and 0.3 percent were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1 percent endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.

Bottom line: In the actual study in question, only one-third of the 11,994 academic papers studied could be construed as arguing for man-made warming. The other two-thirds may have focused on other factors, perhaps the unprecedented increase in solar activity seen over the past century.

Regardless, the big lie has taken hold, and is now being used to push for “decarbonization” policies, and to silence critics of “global warming.”


In other words scientists who believe in man made global warming believe global warming is man made. There's your 97% consensus.


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> There actually is a VERY close 100% agreement in it *FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH AN ASSESSMENT.*.


If those who are deemed qualified to make the assessment are limited to those who agree with the theory, then that will always be the case.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

You might also be interested in Hendrick Svensmark's research that indicates cosmic radiation has more to do with climate change than human action.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANMTPF1blpQ


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Jaberwock said:


> If those who are deemed qualified to make the assessment are limited to those who agree with the theory, then that will always be the case.


So your idea is to let people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say? that's a false equivalency. There are still people who believe the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is not even round. Should we let those people in to meeting at NASA for rocket design? No, that would be stupid.

So no - you are not allowed to your opinion, for example, for whether natural selection is the best explanation for the massive diversity we see around the world.

Read this: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Reminds me of the time someone handed Einstein a book with articles by 100 prominent academics making a monkey out of him and his theories.

He glanced at the book, put it down and said ' If I was wrong, one would have been enough'.

True science doesn't need protection. Only false science needs to be protected from criticism and new research.

You could look up some of the debates of the past like the controversy between evolution and religion in the 19th century. It is illuminating that as long as free speech open debate and scientific research were encouraged evolution went from strength to strength and it was the creationists today who want to stifle science by law.

So if you want to class yourself with creationists who believe Alley Oop rode around on a dinosaur 5000 years ago go ahead and ban scientific research and debate.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

none said:


> So your idea is to let people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say? that's a false equivalency. There are still people who believe the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is not even round. Should we let those people in to meeting at NASA for rocket design? No, that would be stupid.
> 
> So no - you are not allowed to your opinion, for example, for whether natural selection is the best explanation for the massive diversity we see around the world.
> 
> Read this: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978


It is interesting that no one proposes banning the Flat Earth Society or creationist groups. They are free to express their opinions and the rest of us are free to laugh at them. I guess it is because they don't threaten any vested interests.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> It is interesting that no one proposes banning the Flat Earth Society or creationist groups. They are free to express their opinions and the rest of us are free to laugh at them. I guess it is because they don't threaten any vested interests.


Be assured, there are many, many people laughing at the anti-global warming groups. Difference is, they don't have millions of dollars supporting them. Of course, even with all the money they seem to have lost as finally it seems that world governments are finally bending to evidence based decision making and taking action. Possibly too little or too late.

To quote tyson:

“The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

So what do you think of Hendrik Svensmark's research?


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> So your idea is to let people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say? that's a false equivalency. There are still people who believe the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is not even round. Should we let those people in to meeting at NASA for rocket design? No, that would be stupid.
> 
> So no - you are not allowed to your opinion, for example, for whether natural selection is the best explanation for the massive diversity we see around the world.
> 
> Read this: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978


History is full of cases where scientists who challenged the "theory of the day" were deemed unqualified. There are many highly qualified scientists who question the theories behind climate change, the accuracy of the climate change models and causes of climate change. One of them is Pal Brekke, a world renowned expert in solar radiation, who puts forward an alternative reason for the 0.6 degree rise in temperatures since 1901. Climatologists claim that Brekke is unqualified because his expertise is in a different field of science, but his explanation for the rise in the earth's temperatures is just as credible as the "carbon dioxide" theory.

http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Pl_Brekke_Internationally_renowned_climate_sceptic_and_solar_expert/1236685401212?lang=en

In his own words:

"Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time" - and that sums up why the Portland school board should not be banning books.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Sounds like Pal Brekke and Henrik Svensmark have a lot in common.

If I can put Prof Svensmark's theory in a nut shell:

Water vapor or cloud cover is a more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 in fact 20X more powerful. This is well known in climate science and no one doubts it.

Cloud formation is affected by cosmic radiation. This was demonstrated in cloud chambers more than 100 years ago and is a well known phenomenon.

We have data on cosmic radiation and on cloud formation thanks to satellite imaging. The two agree, and also match with temperature changes.

In other words cosmic radiation affects cloud formation which affects global temperatures. And this effect is much stronger than CO2.

This explains why global temperatures have been flat or slightly down for the last 15 or 20 years in spite of increasing CO2.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Jaberwock said:


> "Anyone who claims that the debate is over and the conclusions are firm has a fundamentally unscientific approach to one of the most momentous issues of our time" - and that sums up why the Portland school board should not be banning books.


And that's a retarded thing to say. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every conclusion and every experiment supporting a conclusion must therefore from first principles. That's ridiculous and dumb. To paraphrase Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.

This is the same level as people claiming that atheism is a religion - it's a straw-man argument and totally idiotic. Have fun with that.


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> And that's a retarded thing to say. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every conclusion and every experiment supporting a conclusion must therefore from first principles. That's ridiculous and dumb. To paraphrase Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> This is the same level as people claiming that atheism is a religion - it's a straw-man argument and totally idiotic. Have fun with that.


CO2 climate science is not based on experiments with firm conclusions. It is based on computer models, designed by humans, with input parameters that can be varied and can come up with widely varying results. It is no more than a theory which can never be verified, because to do so would require actually increasing CO2 emissions to see what would happen. Even then, the results would be inconclusive, because all of the other natural factors which contribute to climate change would have to be eliminated from the experiment.

We have an unproven and unprovable theory, we should never be banning books or limiting discussion because we have assumed that theory to be correct.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

Then we respect to the book banning thing, does anyone else see the massive logical crater they are stumbling into...

They are saying settled, obviously true, plain as the nose on my face. Then why the need to ban books? No need to ban anything with the settled and obviously true nature of the topic at hand, nobody can or will be fooled by these books. Same as flat earth etc. So a hard push to ban here really is a contradiction of what they believe, and undermines their position.


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

Pushing lots of polution in the air isn't good and clean energy is certainly better. Climate change however is complex and there are many factors that play into it to just come to a conclusion based on media hype and twisting of the scientist conclusions as mentioned above. We have had the opportunity and innovation around for a very long time on cleaner energy but it has been suppressed because of the need to make money off of energy like oil. Now with oil peaking new ways of bringing on innovation and clean energy must move forward and giant corporations must twist it so they can make a ton of money off of it.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

God damn this forum is full of idiots.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

hboy43 said:


> Then we respect to the book banning thing, does anyone else see the massive logical crater they are stumbling into...
> 
> They are saying settled, obviously true, plain as the nose on my face. Then why the need to ban books? No need to ban anything with the settled and obviously true nature of the topic at hand, nobody can or will be fooled by these books. Same as flat earth etc. So a hard push to ban here really is a contradiction of what they believe, and undermines their position.


Students go to school to learn. Teachers go to school to teach. Students, especially young students, tend to believe that authority figures (teachers, books, etc.) are telling the truth. That's why so many kids believe in Santa Claus. As adults we can say nobody can be fooled by the Santa Claus myth, but millions of children are fooled by the myth, and they're fooled for years. Older children get fooled by many other myths; how many of us grew up believing that Columbus "discovered" America?

How would you feel if your kids went to school to learn about investing, and lonewolf was the teacher: his classes would be all about how the behaviour of stock markets is ultimately controlled by astronomical and astrological cycles. After all, stock markets are complex and nobody really understands all the factors that lead to bull or bear markets. If they did, we'd be able to predict future market behaviour with 100 percent accuracy. So that means astrology is just as plausible a theory for why markets fluctuate as any other theory, and in fact lonewolf can provide lots of correlative evidence to back up those claims. And because lonewolf is the teacher, and the students have come to the teacher to learn, they will learn to base their investment decisions on astrology. 

If they're lucky, the students will eventually encounter other teachers who teach different theories. But they may not be able to tell for themselves which theories are most plausible because they don't have any context for judging: if they read a book that provides convincing evidence for how astrology controls stock markets, they might be convinced that it's true. After all, the teacher isn't telling them that this is only one of many theories on stock market behaviour, nor is the teacher explaining that most investors don't actually believe in this theory, that it's a minority view.

Should astrology books be banned from business and investment schools? Or should they be allowed in and carry equal weight with other theories because "the science isn't settled?"


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

No one with the facts on their side has to ban a differing opinion. This is nothing but political censorship blindly accepted by clueless alarmists and useful idiots. In fact, all along, the powers that be have specifically stated that it's not about climate, it's always been about financial control:

Ottar Edenhofer Co-chair U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change working group on Mitigation of Climate Change from 2008 to 2015:

"One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy,” “We redistribute de facto the world’s wealth by climate policy.”

Christiana Figueres, Executive Secretary of U.N.’s Framework Convention on Climate Change:

“This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution.”

US Senator Timothy Wirth (Later at the UN):

“We’ve got to ride the global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing …”

Christine Stewart, Canadian Minister of the Environment:

“No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”


----------



## dogcom (May 23, 2009)

none said:


> God damn this forum is full of idiots.


Power, money and control is always there when things get to this level and to think it is otherwise is truly idiotic.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> Older children get fooled by many other myths; how many of us grew up believing that Columbus "discovered" America?


Precisely. And if all dissenting views and research was banned we'd probably still believe it. 

Have you and none ever read, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Kuhn? 

The view of science implied by you and none in your posts makes you two look exceedingly naive. 

Newton's writings, although now considered wrong, were never banned. Nor was Kepler's. Even Aristotle's physics has not been banned. 
Banning works of thought and theory is what ideologues and politicians do, not scientists.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> So your idea is to let people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say? that's a false equivalency. There are still people who believe the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is not even round. Should we let those people in to meeting at NASA for rocket design? No, that would be stupid.
> 
> So no - you are not allowed to your opinion, for example, for whether natural selection is the best explanation for the massive diversity we see around the world.
> 
> Read this: https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978


none, you are taking that article out of context. He wrote, _in this room you are not entitled to your opinion, you are only entitled to what you can argue for.._. Apparently he want's his class to engage in critical thinking. Now, in Portland they have diverged from critical thinking by banning alternate theories, and moved towards uncritical acceptance of only one theory. 

Have you ever read Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> Be assured, there are many, many people laughing at the anti-global warming groups. Difference is, they don't have millions of dollars supporting them. Of course, even with all the money they seem to have lost as finally it seems that world governments are finally bending to evidence based decision making and taking action. Possibly too little or too late.
> 
> To quote tyson:
> 
> “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”


Here is an interesting discussion of Tyson's words:

https://www.quora.com/What-do-you-t...at-its-true-whether-or-not-you-believe-in-it”

The author of that discussion, Robert Frost, clearly has a deeper understanding of science than you. Have you read the authors he quotes?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Science never bans differing opinions...only religion and politics wants to shut up those who disagree.

However, what saddens me more is not that the people in power want to silence those who disagree...it's the clueless idiots who support the silencing of those with a different opinion. Freedom of speech is not something to be taken lightly, yet there is a segment of the population (many on this board) are more than willing to give up a hard fought freedom if it means that someone they disagree with will be silenced.

The eroding of free speech is the real failure of "progressive" thinking. Once freedom of speech is gone, democracy crumbles.


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

none said:


> God damn this forum is full of idiots.


Maybe so, but I suspect your set of idiots differs from mine.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

'It is no more than a theory which can never be verified, because to do so would require actually increasing CO2 emissions to see what would happen. Even then, the results would be inconclusive, because all of the other natural factors which contribute to climate change would have to be eliminated from the experiment.'

Actually we have seen the increasing CO2 levels accompanied by flat or falling temps which must suggest to any unbiased observer that there are other, more powerful forces at work.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

'God damn this forum is full of idiots.'


Not just this forum. I feel like I live in a trailer park of sense surrounded by a tornado of stupidity.


If you think it is a good idea to ban free speech in order to protect the world from an opinion you disagree with, it may be time to re examine your beliefs.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I'm not suggesting free speech be banned. I just reserve the right to call people who spout nonsense idiots. If someone want to debate whether 2+2=5 they are welcome to but those that don't have to time to indulge such ingnorance should be forced to listen NOR have their child subject to that ignorance. 

Fail at trying to suggest it's a free speech issue. Science is not about free speech but about an arena of ideas that compete with each other.


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> God damn this forum is full of idiots.


There would be one less idiot on the forum if you weren't here


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> I'm not suggesting free speech be banned. I just reserve the right to call people who spout nonsense idiots. If someone want to debate whether 2+2=5 they are welcome to but those that don't have to time to indulge such ingnorance should be forced to listen NOR have their child subject to that ignorance.
> 
> Fail at trying to suggest it's a free speech issue. Science is not about free speech but about an arena of ideas that compete with each other.


How can ideas compete if one side is banned from discussion from alarmists with a political agenda?

I agree with Rusty...there are a lot of idiots here. In fact, the term is "useful idiots", and it describes those who want to end any and all debate of scientific topics because they don't want a different viewpoint heard. Let's take it a step further. In California, a recent bill was created (thankfully it did not pass) that would allow the government to sue those who disagreed with the government opinion on climate:

"*This bill explicitly authorizes district attorneys and the Attorney General to pursue UCL claims alleging that a business or organization has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic induced climate change*,” says the state Senate Rules Committee’s floor analysis."

"(a) (1) Notwithstanding Section 17208 of the Business and Professions Code, an action pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 17200) of Part 2 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code against a corporation, firm, partnership, joint stock company, association, or other organization of persons that has directly or indirectly engaged in unfair competition, as defined in Section 17200 of the Business and Professions Code, with respect to scientific evidence regarding the existence, extent, or current or future impacts of anthropogenic-induced climate change that would otherwise be barred as of January 1, 2017, solely because the statute of limitation has or had expired, is revived and, in that case, the action may be commenced within four years of January 1, 2017. Nothing in this subdivision shall be construed to alter the applicable limitation period of an action that is not time barred as of January 1, 2017."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/06...allow-prosecution-of-climate-change-skeptics/

It did not pass, but if it did, anyone who disagreed with the state's opinion on climate change could be sued. Is this North Korea or North America? What's comes next if that passes in a year or so? Jail for those who question spending? Jail for those who poke fun at politicians? When would it end?

The useful idiots are willing to give up our hard fought freedom to silence differing opinion. They are too stupid to understand that one day THEIR opinion may not match that of the government. Then what will they do?


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> I'm not suggesting free speech be banned. I just reserve the right to call people who spout nonsense idiots. If someone want to debate whether 2+2=5 they are welcome to but those that don't have to time to indulge such ingnorance should be forced to listen NOR have their child subject to that ignorance.
> 
> Fail at trying to suggest it's a free speech issue. Science is not about free speech but about an arena of ideas that compete with each other.





> There actually is a VERY close 100% agreement in it FOR PEOPLE WHO ARE QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH AN ASSESSMENT..
> 
> The VAST majority of those that don't are stupid geologist, engineers and politicians (see donald trump for example) who really don't know what they're talking about.
> 
> just like evolution. it is 100% confirmed that it's true by people who actually know what they are talking about. Idiotic religious zealots are holdouts of course.





> So your idea is to let people who don't know what they are talking about have an equal say? that's a false equivalency. There are still people who believe the sun orbits the earth or that the earth is not even round. Should we let those people in to meeting at NASA for rocket design? No, that would be stupid.
> 
> So no - you are not allowed to your opinion, for example, for whether natural selection is the best explanation for the massive diversity we see around the world.





> “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”





> And that's a retarded thing to say. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that every conclusion and every experiment supporting a conclusion must therefore from first principles. That's ridiculous and dumb. To paraphrase Isaac Newton: "If I have seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants.
> 
> This is the same level as people claiming that atheism is a religion - it's a straw-man argument and totally idiotic. Have fun with that.


Once again you are the smartest guy in the room.

An accurate description of the scientific method in post after post. Music to my ears.

This whole thread immediately reminded me of the "I.D." beat-down creationists took in US courts when they tried to go full-retard by trying to get it (re) introduced (under another name) into the classroom during the Kitzmiller-v-Dover trial. Thank f*ck reason and not ignorance prevailed.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Gah! the jungle of typos! That's humiliating.... ::upset:

I always do my best proof reading after I hit "post quick reply"


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> Gah! the jungle of typos! That's humiliating.... ::upset:
> 
> I always do my best proof reading after I hit "post quick reply"


lmao i was gonna fix them in my quote, rofl. This matter the least, but it's always good since it'll show you clearly who has run out of rational comebacks. When they get down to your spelling, they've lost the debate.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

The_Tosser said:


> When they get down to your spelling, they've lost the debate.


Your side lost the debate long ago. That's why they are trying to prevent any further debate. Now they are reduced to banning books and attempting to pass legislation making it illegal to disagree with the government. No one with truth on their side has to pass laws to prevent others from hearing another opinion. No one with the truth on their side has to pass laws threatening people them with legal action for thinking differently.

It's truly mind boggling that in 2016 some people will willingly accept censorship or legal action for those who have a different opinion. Shame on you.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Lol. that's hilarious.

I don't think expecting that text books used at publicly funded schools meet minimum educational requirements (i.e contain correct information) is unreasonable.

Should intelligent design be included in biology text books? Please, i'd _loooove _to know your opinion on that.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Should intelligent design be included in biology text books? Please, i'd _loooove _to know your opinion on that.


Those are 2 different issues. There is ample evidence that disproves intelligent design. There is no proof that man-made CO2 contributions are dangerous. There are some unproven theories based on computer models that have a spectacular failure rate, but that's not proof.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's actually not. It's at the point that it's at more/less the same level. 

If anything, the most accepted models (and it's standard to have multiple competing models, you can fit a model to anything) suggest predictions may actually be quite conservative. 

So yeah, if you want to be a crackpot spouting about how 'Oooohhh!! The eye-ball!!! What's with that??? how can it be??? JESUS! JESUS!!" be my guest.

Here, you go:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ear...-change-explained-in-60-second-animation.html


----------



## Jaberwock (Aug 22, 2012)

none said:


> I don't think expecting that text books used at publicly funded schools meet minimum educational requirements (i.e contain correct information) is unreasonable.


Do you mean correct information, or politically correct information? The latter seems to be what you are asking for.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Jaberwock said:


> Do you mean correct information, or politically correct information? The latter seems to be what you are asking for.


What ? You mean whether it's politically correct to say if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? i don't want my kid filled with religious mumbo jumbo. No thanks. if you want your kid to wallow in ignorance send your kid to a religious private school. He'll be a useful drone for my future captain of industry.


----------



## The_Tosser (Oct 20, 2015)

none said:


> What ? You mean whether it's politically correct to say if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? i don't want my kid filled with religious mumbo jumbo. No thanks. if you want your kid to wallow in ignorance send your kid to a religious private school. He'll be a useful drone for my future captain of industry.


You mean this dudes ignorant opinion shouldn't be taught in schools? rofl. "The Hovind Theory" lmao






Oh sorry "Doctor" Hovind, rofl. I think he goes the whole 2hrs and 20 minutes without saying one single thing that is correct.



> "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth"


Well, ****, case closed. It's right there in black and white. How do you argue with that logic? 

No monkeys, no apes, no geologic column, no predictions made and later confirmed, no Genetic or ERV confirmation of a 100 years of evolution science before that.

Nope, it's right there in the book. Yep, lets just listen to know-nothings. Everyone's opinion matters, lol. Uhmm,... No. Science doesn't work that way for a reason.

And yes, all too often schools are building nothing but retards. It's an infection that really falls to the parents to sort out, earlier than later, because our education centers for the most part aren't doing it. It's embarrassing. They are far too politically correct to make a logic based decision. Ooh boy i could tell you some sad stories. Disgraceful at the highest levels.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> It's actually not. It's at the point that it's at more/less the same level.
> 
> If anything, the most accepted models (and it's standard to have multiple competing models, you can fit a model to anything) suggest predictions may actually be quite conservative.
> 
> ...


OK None, I looked at your video. Why do they think they know what global average surface temps were in the past, for example 1850-1900? What is the margin of error for making such a claim? You see, if they claim temps rose 0.8C from 1900 onward, what makes them so sure of their starting temps? 

Facts rely on the belief, or assumption that the methods to determine them are valid and reliable. I'm not convinced that it is known with precision what the average surface temp was in 1850 - 1900. 

Your video is evangelism.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Go look it up your damn self.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Pluto said:


> OK None, I looked at your video. Why do they think they know what global average surface temps were in the past, for example 1850-1900? What is the margin of error for making such a claim? You see, if they claim temps rose 0.8C from 1900 onward, what makes them so sure of their starting temps?
> 
> Facts rely on the belief, or assumption that the methods to determine them are valid and reliable. I'm not convinced that it is known with precision what the average surface temp was in 1850 - 1900.


Show me any climatologist who claims to know with precision what temperatures were before the instrument record began. I've never encountered one. They always use error bars; I suppose you and others here are afraid to look at the IPCC reports because you're worried that they might actually make sense (or because the politically motivated propaganda you read has convinced you that the IPCC reports aren't based on sound science) but if you take even five minutes to look at them you'll see plenty of discussion of uncertainy in the past temperature record, and all estimates are given with error bars.

Read this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf if you want to learn about the temperature record and uncertainties.

There's also the Frequently Asked Questions brochure, which deals with this and many other common questions about climate change, all backed by hundreds of published studies:

http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/docs/WG1AR5_FAQbrochure_FINAL.pdf


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> What ? You mean whether it's politically correct to say if we came from monkeys why are there still monkeys? i don't want my kid filled with religious mumbo jumbo. No thanks. if you want your kid to wallow in ignorance send your kid to a religious private school. He'll be a useful drone for my future captain of industry.


none, it is the religious organizations that want to ban books. Don't you get that? Clearly your totalitarian views on how science and education should unfold is an argument against intelligent design.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> Show me any climatologist who claims to know with precision what temperatures were before the instrument record began. I've never encountered one. They always use error bars; I suppose you and others here are afraid to look at the IPCC reports because you're worried that they might actually make sense (or because the politically motivated propaganda you read has convinced you that the IPCC reports aren't based on sound science) but if you take even five minutes to look at them you'll see plenty of discussion of uncertainy in the past temperature record, and all estimates are given with error bars.
> 
> Read this http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_Chapter02_FINAL.pdf if you want to learn about the temperature record and uncertainties.
> 
> ...


Well here is an educational site that gives clear evidence that current temps are about the same as the middle ages with the little ice age in between. 

http://www.co2science.org

By the way, why does the alleged 97% of scientists require a political organization to report? In critical thinking class it was emphasized we should always check the primary sources. Why are you satisfied with a political secondary source? This is similar to the USSR when they banned publication of science until after the political review board approved it: they only wanted published what confirmed to the goals of the state. Science should have the liberty to pursue what ever without interference by book banners and other forms of censorship.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Pluto said:


> By the way, why does the alleged 97% of scientists require a political organization to report? In critical thinking class it was emphasized we should always check the primary sources. Why are you satisfied with a political secondary source? This is similar to the USSR when they banned publication of science until after the political review board approved it: they only wanted published what confirmed to the goals of the state. Science should have the liberty to pursue what ever without interference by book banners and other forms of censorship.


Where did you get the idea that the IPCC is a political organization? Sure, it's under the auspices of the United Nations, but do you think of UNICEF as a political organization? All the IPCC does is enlist thousands of government and academic scientists around the world (including some prominent skeptics) to assess the current state of knowledge on climate change and write the chapters. The IPCC doesn't do original research; its findings are based on thousands of published studies in the literature. The IPCC doesn't influence policy or try to make policy; one of its reports does include recommendations for actions to reduce and adapt to climate change, but it carries no political weight.

In addition to the IPCC, the same general findings are available in other synthesis reports that evaluate the current state of the science, such as the U.S. National Academies of Science, which has done several state of the science assessments of climate change and come up with the same conclusions as the IPCC.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Brad - don't waste your time with these mouth breathers. I used to try but now I just make fun of them. I know it's not terribly nice to make fun of retarded people but it's totally fine making fun of people acting retarded.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

*IPCC assessments a statement of faith*

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMRVXhCfXZY

And based on that faith, Portland schools ban material that questions the faith.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> Brad - don't waste your time with these mouth breathers. I used to try but now I just make fun of them. I know it's not terribly nice to make fun of retarded people but it's totally fine making fun of people acting retarded.


I'm not going to waste my time (I've been working on climate change professionally for 27 years and I know there's no point trying to change minds), but I do think it's worth giving skeptics more respect; as I've said elsewhere science isn't done by vote and one person who's right is worth 10,000 who are wrong (a point that was made to me by a climate scientist years ago). It would be wonderful if we could discover tomorrow that this has turned out to be nothing to worry about it and the majority view is wrong. I keep hoping for that, but as the years go by and the evidence piles up, the possibility just gets slimmer and slimmer.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Ha! That's interesting. I was thinking the same thing today. We have a fairly severe drought on Vancouver island which makes my job difficult and 93% of the great barrier reef is now bleached. Yeah, things are peachy.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Ha! That's interesting. I was thinking the same thing today. We have a fairly severe drought on Vancouver island which makes my job difficult and 93% of the great barrier reef is now bleached. Yeah, things are peachy.
> 
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare


The claim of 93% was an outright lie:

"Dr Reichelt said the authority had withdrawn from a joint *announcement on coral bleaching with Professor Hughes this week “because we didn’t think it told the whole story”. The taskforce said mass bleaching had killed 35 per cent of corals on the northern and central Great Barrier Reef.

Dr Reichelt said maps accompanying the research had been misleading, exaggerating the *impact. “I don’t know whether it was a deliberate sleight of hand or lack of geographic knowledge but it certainly suits the purpose of the people who sent it out,” he said."

Also from that article:

"The bleaching affects 22% of the reef and is mostly localized to the far northern section, which has good prospects of recovery."

So, it's really 22% instead of 93%, with a good chance of recovery. But, 22% isn't scary enough, so they simply lied to promote their agenda, and you bought it.

http://joannenova.com.au/2016/06/gr...hreats-says-head-of-gbr-authority/#more-49114


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Surveys have revealed that 93% of the almost 3,000 individual reefs have been touched by bleaching, and almost a quarter – 22% – of coral over the entire Great Barrier Reef has been killed by this bleaching event. On many reefs around Lizard Island and further north, there is utter devastation.

Bleaching does not mean the coral is dead but it is a severe sign of stress and a very very bad sign.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/jun/07/the-great-barrier-reef-a-catastrophe-laid-bare


----------



## hboy43 (May 10, 2009)

brad said:


> Students go to school to learn. Teachers go to school to teach. Students, especially young students, tend to believe that authority figures (teachers, books, etc.) are telling the truth. That's why so many kids believe in Santa Claus. As adults we can say nobody can be fooled by the Santa Claus myth, but millions of children are fooled by the myth, and they're fooled for years. Older children get fooled by many other myths; how many of us grew up believing that Columbus "discovered" America?
> 
> How would you feel if your kids went to school to learn about investing, and lonewolf was the teacher: his classes would be all about how the behaviour of stock markets is ultimately controlled by astronomical and astrological cycles. After all, stock markets are complex and nobody really understands all the factors that lead to bull or bear markets. If they did, we'd be able to predict future market behaviour with 100 percent accuracy. So that means astrology is just as plausible a theory for why markets fluctuate as any other theory, and in fact lonewolf can provide lots of correlative evidence to back up those claims. And because lonewolf is the teacher, and the students have come to the teacher to learn, they will learn to base their investment decisions on astrology.
> 
> ...


I took the original article to mean that the books under discussion had both the majority position as well as alternative positions presented. Good teachers would make this clear. On this assumption, most of your commentary above does not reflect what I think is under discussion, so I will not comment further.

Plus, I guess I have a higher opinion of the age group who might be exposed to this topic than you hold. By the time I was 12 or 14 it was often clear that the smartest person in the room was not the teacher. I am not saying that I was the smartest person, rather just look around at what level some of these kids function at, for example some of the kids at the science fairs.

hboy43


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

brad said:


> I'm not going to waste my time (I've been working on climate change professionally for 27 years and I know there's no point trying to change minds), but I do think it's worth giving skeptics more respect; as I've said elsewhere science isn't done by vote and one person who's right is worth 10,000 who are wrong (a point that was made to me by a climate scientist years ago). It would be wonderful if we could discover tomorrow that this has turned out to be nothing to worry about it and the majority view is wrong. I keep hoping for that, but as the years go by and the evidence piles up, the possibility just gets slimmer and slimmer.


brad I would like your opinion on Hendrik Svensmark's work. I am not kidding nor am I trying to start something. I have been following this Global Warming business for years and am always interested in new information and informed opinion.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> brad I would like your opinion on Hendrik Svensmark's work. I am not kidding nor am I trying to start something. I have been following this Global Warming business for years and am always interested in new information and informed opinion.


Hi Rusty - here's the most definitive analysis of his work that I've found: https://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-rays-and-global-warming-advanced.htm

There are lots of these theories that make intuitive sense and seem plausible, but while they may play a role in climate change it appears to be small.

On the other hand, the climate system is complex enough that people do occasionally discover new natural cycles that are contributing factors. About 20 years ago I remember reading a paper that found a long-term cycle in climate based on the strength of tides, which varies in cycles over time based on the orbits of the earth and moon: when tides are relatively stronger the climate cools globally because strong tides bring more cold water to the sea surface around the coasts, whereas when tides are relatively weak there's more warming. But the authors found that this didn't have a huge effect on the current trend and it's just one of many contributing factors.

The greenhouse effect in itself isn't a theory, it's a scientific principle: you can demonstrate it in simple experiments and I've seen it done -- just take two aquariums, one filled with normal air and another filled with air plus additional CO2 and expose to sunlight; the one with CO2 gets a lot warmer. The basic underlying mechanism for warming is proven, and there's proof that CO2 and other greenhouse gases have increased in the atmosphere (it's also proven that nearly all of that CO2 increase has come from burning fossil fuels, because the CO2 from fossil fuels has a particular isotopic fingerprint). The larger area of uncertainty lies in how the climate system responds to that added heat: it mostly depends on how the heat affects the amount of water vapour in the atmosphere, and that's where scientists begin to disagree.

In the big picture, the largest factor controlling climate is the sun: that's what's responsible for ice ages and interglacials. But climatologists have been studying the sun's contribution to current climate intensively for decades and the weight of the evidence shows that it's not having much effect on the current trend. In this tiny blip in the Earth's history, humans are having a larger influence on climate than nature is. Usually it's the other way around: the climate has always changed naturally and will continue to change naturally in the future.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

It is interesting that the alarmist keep trying to prove their point rather than deal with the unpleasant fact that government is banning different opinions. It's not like we're talking about gravity...we're talking about an unproven theory.

I'm pretty sure they'd be upset if their opinion was banned, and that's the real point that they choose to ignore.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

bass player said:


> It is interesting that the alarmist keep trying to prove their point rather than deal with the unpleasant fact that government is banning different opinions. It's not like we're talking about gravity...we're talking about an unproven theory.
> 
> I'm pretty sure they'd be upset if their opinion was banned, and that's the real point that they choose to ignore.


Oh, I'm completely opposed to the idea of banning books that present both sides of the climate change debate. There are fanatics on both sides of this issue.

Some of the arguments posed by others here seem a bit over the top to me: someone above said that books shouldn't be banned from schools just because they present an alternative point of view. So logically that means we shouldn't ban books in schools that promote radical Islamist beliefs, or books that encourage students to kill their teachers, or whatever. I suppose it means we shouldn't ban pornographic books and magazines in schools, because after all some people feel pornography is healthy and natural and that's an "alternative point of view." Where do you draw the line?

But I agree that it's a bad idea to ban books that present both sides of a contested topic, as long as those books make it clear what the majority view is. A book on human evolution that includes a chapter on creationism would be fine with me; pretending that creationism doesn't exist is foolish. But you do have to put it into perspective; using the argument I made earlier, should a textbook on investing give as much weight to theories that astrology controls market cycles as it gives to other theories on market forces?


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Thanks for the link to an interesting article. I read it carefully along with the discussion that followed and a few things pop out.

The author says 'As is the case with these other solar attributes, solar magnetic field has not changed appreciably over the past three decades'. He then shows a graph of Total Observed Flux cycling between 5 and 110. This is hardly unchanged. I also noticed that the last cycle peaked in 2001. Later he shows a graph of global temperature which starts to flatten out about this time. He goes on to say 'Galactic cosmic rays can't explain global warming'. I never heard anyone claim they did. At most they would be one factor of many.

The discussion and rebuttal that follows is very interesting and illustrates that the subject is not cut and dried, and that the science is not 'settled'.

I also notice the article dates to 2007 and is based on data that is now 9 years out of date.

By the way I live in Canada and I could use some Global Warming. I like Global Warming. What pisses me off is that the Global Warming promoters promised me 30 years ago that by now I would be basking in tropical splendor and it never happened. God dammit I want my Global Warming and I want it now, or at least by next winter.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> T
> 
> I also notice the article dates to 2007 and is based on data that is now 9 years out of date.


Did you notice that it was last updated in October 2015?

There's also discussion of cosmic rays in the IPCC reports and other assessments. I think the general consensus is that it's a contributor, but not a major factor.

My guess is that the science on climate change won't be "settled" for another 75-80 years. There will always be counterarguments for something this complex. In the meantime, though, you have to look at the balance of evidence, the multiple lines of evidence, and the risks, and decide whether it's worth taking steps to slow the trend (too late to stop it, but we can slow it). Most of the actions that we can take to reduce greenhouse gas emissions make sense regardless of whether the climate changes: fossil fuels have a lot of negative impacts besides climate change, and energy efficiency saves money. As far as I know, there is not a single example of a company that has lost money by reducing its greenhouse gas emissions. And most of the steps that we can take to adapt to future climate change also make sense regardless of how bad it turns out to be: we're not totally prepared to handle even today's climate variations and extremes.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

*Earth's Climatic History: The Last 1,000 Years*

http://www.co2science.org/subject/other/clim_hist_1thousand.php

That paper proposes, based on references to scientific research, that the Middle Age period was as warm or warmer than the present time with an intervening Little Ice Age from which we are recovering. 

(That view is consistent with the belief that the Vikings were in Greenland around 1000 ad and that they left sometime during the Little Ice age.)

This is the type of view that questions current hysteria that is apparently banned in Portland schools. 

The diversionary topics such as evolution vs creationism, and radical Islamic stuff is irrelevant. Its just a diversion from the main issue. 

They want to ban other scientific perspectives based on their faith in the political IPCC faith. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMRVXhCfXZY


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> By the way I live in Canada and I could use some Global Warming. I like Global Warming. What pisses me off is that the Global Warming promoters promised me 30 years ago that by now I would be basking in tropical splendor and it never happened. God dammit I want my Global Warming and I want it now, or at least by next winter.



you're joking, right?

global warming in canada


fort mcMurray fires everywhere
parched prairies with grain-growing capacity destroyed forever
arable farm belt moving from fertile soil river valleys in southern canada to inhospitable muskeg & precambrian shield bedrock at northern latitudes
permanent flooding of most canadian cities


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> Go look it up your damn self.


Why do you reference mainstream media so much? They are notoriously inaccurate as their main job is to sell papers. they often exaggerate and mislead because they know impending doom stories sell. 

You promote yourself as a scientist yet I don't recall you referencing an actual scientific paper. 

Why don't you or Brad respond to these scientists in these videos:

http://www.co2science.org/video/cop/cop15/ipcc.php#movement

I think you have a deep faith in the IPCC and promote banning of scientific material that questions faith in the IPCC world view.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Pluto said:


> I think you have a deep faith in the IPCC and promote banning of scientific material that questions faith in the IPCC world view.


I think we have faith in the scientific process, which aims to get at truths. You can forget about the IPCC, just go back and read the thousands of published studies on which the IPCC reports are based. The IPCC doesn't do original research, it merely synthesizes the findings of published studies so policy makers and scientists don't have to spend 10 years reading all of those thousands of published studies to try to figure out what the big picture is.

As i mentioned before, if you don't like the IPCC, take your pick of other large assessment reports that review and summarize the state of the science. For example:

The U.S. National Climate Assessment: http://nca2014.globalchange.gov

The many studies conducted by the U.S. National Academies of Sciences (look under "Reports"): http://nas-sites.org/americasclimatechoices/

The American Geophysical Union's position statemenet on climate change: https://news.agu.org/press-release/...revised-position-statement-on-climate-change/

The American Meteorological Society's statement on climate change: https://www.ametsoc.org/ams/index.c...tatements-of-the-ams-in-force/climate-change/


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

brad said:


> A book on human evolution that includes a chapter on creationism would be fine with me; pretending that creationism doesn't exist is foolish. But you do have to put it into perspective; using the argument I made earlier, should a textbook on investing give as much weight to theories that astrology controls market cycles as it gives to other theories on market forces?


Wrong. Creationism is NOT a reasonable, or testable, explanation for the diversity that we see in the world. Creationism is NOT scientific and therefore most certainly does NOT belong in a science textbook. Jesus Brad, what the hell are you thinking?

"“Presenting a religious creation story as a scientifically valid theory is nonsense,” she says, in a short film made for a BBC discussion program. “I don’t have a problem with creationism being discussed in religious education lessons but it has no place in science education,” she says, adding, “I think creationism has the potential to ruin a scientific education.”"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/nickmor...has-no-place-in-a-science-class/#689f878bb495


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> Jesus Brad, what the hell are you thinking?


Did you just say "Jesus?" 

I had a biology professor once who was a creationist; he taught evolution and we even did lab experiments to demonstrate natural selection and evolution so we could witness it with our very eyes (with fruit flies), but when we got to human evolution he just said something like "I'm going to teach you what science tells us, but I happen to believe in divine creation," and that was it. No harm done, really.

Personally I think science textbooks should mention that some people don't believe in evolution, based on their religious beliefs. Otherwise it seems like a glaring omission: right, it's not science, but millions of people believe in creation and ignoring it leaves a big elephant in the room. Why not acknowledge it; maybe it doesn't deserve a chapter but at least a footnote or a few sentences. Many of my science textbooks included some info on the history of science and how ideas came about, including a discussion of the prevailing theories at the time. It doesn't seem out of place to me.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Well if you call yourself a scientist you are in an extreme minority in your view. What's next? Have Harry Potter novels in science class?

REmember, religeon / creationism etc is nothing more than hocus pocus baloney. To put them side by side gives a false equivalency and religious beliefs that provide absolutely so useful direction in biology / evolution teachings (lets put in the Noah Ark theory in the biogeography chapter!) certainly do not belong on science text books.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

brad said:


> I had a biology professor once who was a creationist; he taught evolution and we even did lab experiments to demonstrate natural selection and evolution so we could witness it with our very eyes (with fruit flies), but when we got to human evolution he just said something like "I'm going to teach you what science tells us, but I happen to believe in divine creation," and that was it. No harm done, really.



first nations have stunningly poetic creation myths about father Sun & mother Earth. Often the characters include grandmother Moon & the Three Sisters corn, beans & squash.

from the arctic to tierra del fuego, these have inspired songs, stories, art & sculpture.

then there are the greek myths. The great tragedies. The italian & european renaissance. These are only the beginnings. Every civilization on earth has its own rich mythology.

it's more than laughable to talk about banning these mythologies in order to teach straight darwin. It's a fright joke.

.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

According to the Peak Oil alarmists we have now consumed more than half the world's petroleum and from now on oil consumption will fall because we are running out and when it is gone, there is no more. I think 2005 was the top. Oil fields are running dry in Norway, the North Sea, Saudi Arabia, and of course the conventional American oil fields peaked in the 70s. Now that fracking is going out even that little bump must disappear.

So it appears Global Warming must come to an end whether we like it or not, as we release less and less new CO2 into the atmosphere.

This is all straying from the original point which is whether Portland is doing the right thing. I don't think anyone questions their right to set the curriculum for their school system. And, if they truly believe in an apocalyptic Global Warming scenario then it would be irresponsible to teach anything else. I only have one tiny little quibble which is that the scientific method has value, and teaching that in science the majority rules and any dissent must be ruthlessly stamped out, may be doing their students a disservice.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> I think we have faith in the scientific process, which aims to get at truths. [/url]


1. Define the scientific process. Did you read Kuhn's book, the Structure of Scientific Revolutions? 

2. none's video shows a temp graph that starts at 1850. Why there? Possibly because that was the beginning of the industrial revolution which implies use of fossil fuel. However, by starting at 1850 they sidestep the bottom of the Little Ice Age, around 1650. There was considerable warming from 1650 to 1850. It looks like they don't want to have to explain 200 years of preindustrial age warming. Moreover, temperatures around 1000 AD were about as warm or warmer than the present. Apparently that is an inconvenient science based view as well. (In Kuhn's terminology they would be anomalies that the dominant theory ignores.) 

3. Your theory and none's theory seems to be that the state of affairs outlined in item 2 is equivalent to radical Islam and Creationism. That's absurd. Trying to marginalize facts by such ludicrous associations is apparently, according to you and none, part of the scientific search for truth. 

4. Apparently the Portland school system wants to ban scientific material that would inform kids about how warm it was in the Middle Ages compared to now, ban facts about the Little Ice Age around 1650, ban facts that show the (unexplained) 200 year preindustrial warming. Why? 

5. There are lots of people who make a living from the dominant majority view. There is then, a monetary motive to ignore and ban whatever view they think threatens their income.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> Well if you call yourself a scientist you are in an extreme minority in your view. .


I don't call myself a scientist; I've done science but my field is science communication and education. And even though I'm an atheist I would have no problem with biology classes that at least acknowledge the fact that lots of people don't believe in evolution but believe in creation instead. I would of course oppose teaching creationism in any class other than religion classes, but to outright prohibit even the mentioning on creationism in a biology textbook paints science as blinkered and closeminded. Science is about curiosity and a desire to learn how the world works, and like it or not religion plays a big role in human societies and thinking.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

humble_pie said:


> you're joking, right?
> 
> global warming in canada
> 
> ...


See this is what pisses me off. The alarmists are still peddling the same fiction for the last 30 years. None of their apocalyptic predictions have come true and IT DOESN'T MATTER A DAMN BECAUSE IT ISN'T SCIENCE. Any scientist who published a theory, and made predictions based on it, and saw all his predictions fail would be discredited and his theory would be proven false. But with Global Warming, excuse me Climate Change, it doesn't matter because it was never science in the first place. It was a religious or political movement and everyone knows, a religious or political cult can publish the same old bullshit for 100 years or 1000 years and it doesn't matter how many times their prophecies fail to come true.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> See this is what pisses me off. The alarmists are still peddling the same fiction for the last 30 years. None of their apocalyptic predictions have come true and IT DOESN'T MATTER A DAMN BECAUSE IT ISN'T SCIENCE.


If you take a look at what the "alarmists" have been predicting for the past 30 years, all of these impacts are projected to occur toward the end of this century. That's why these "apocalyptic predictions" haven't come true, because they're not scheduled to come true for another few decades. It's as if you're saying "when I was a little kid my parents told me I would die some day, but look, I'm still alive! They were wrong!"

Climate models are generally run using double the pre-industrial concentration of carbon dioxide. We aren't supposed to get to that level until later this century. The models ask, "what would happen to the climate if we doubled CO2?" We don't know exactly when CO2's concentration in the atmosphere will double; much depends on current emissions trends.

As for your claims that climate change was "never science in the first place," there's no hope, you'll just have to wallow in your ignorance, there's no point arguing with positions like that.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Yes and in the 80s they were projected to occur by the end of the 20th century. Go watch An Inconvenient Truth (1997) and see what Al Gore was predicting would happen in 20 years (2017).

We all know the Portland school system didn't dream up this censorship stunt all by themselves. It is all around us in the news media every day. Well when someone keeps hammering the same propaganda and suppressing dissent, I want to know what they are hiding.

If you think I am over reacting get a load of this video, which was produced by an English environmental group and tell me who is over reacting. The message couldn't be more obvious. Fall into line or else. NO dissent can be tolerated. This is what happens to everyone in academia or the media who doesn't endorse the party line.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AsbqoytInTY

At least you don't have a red button connected to me - yet.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Rusty O'Toole said:


> Yes and 30 years ago they were projected to occur by the end of the 20th century. Go watch An Inconvenient Truth (1997) and see what they were predicting would happen in 20 years (2017).


No, 30 years ago the projections were for 2070-2100. I don't know where you're getting your facts, but they're wrong -- you even have the date of An Inconvenient Truth wrong; the film came out in 2006. Time to go do some homework.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

brad said:


> I don't call myself a scientist; I've done science but my field is science communication and education..


This makes sense.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Those who compare climate with evolution and ISIS prove how pathetic and desperate the alarmists have become. They have been reduced to insults and poor analogies in a weak attempt to prove an unproven theory. They recirculate the same lies and myths as if they are "fact", or quote the IPCC as an authority...a political organization that relies on "manmade climate change", without which their existence is not needed. If there's no warming, no need for the IPCC. Any proven facts in contrary are immediately dismissed. 

Alarmists act exactly how a religion does...they rely on faith, they ignore facts, they silence those who disagree, and they threaten those who speak against.

Alarmists say the debate is over. No other field of science says that. Ever.
Alarmists say that you are not allowed to have a different opinion. No other field of science says that. Ever.
Alarmists want those who disagree to be jailed. No other field of science says that. Ever.

Cliamatism is a religion, and you can't reason with religious nuts.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

bass player said:


> Alarmists say the debate is over. No other field of science says that. Ever.
> Alarmists say that you are not allowed to have a different opinion. No other field of science says that. Ever.
> Alarmists want those who disagree to be jailed. No other field of science says that. Ever.


Exactly. Except you seem to think that climate scientists are alarmists. The "alarmists" in this case are politicians and environmental activists. Is Al Gore a scientist? Not by a long shot. He's a politician. I met a woman last weekend who runs a small but rapidly growing nonprofit (several tens of thousands of members); she believes that anyone who builds a fossil-fired power plant today should be tried for crimes against humanity. Do I think that's extreme? Yes. Is she a scientist? No.

I've met and spoken with dozens of climate scientists over the past 30 years, none of whom said "the debate's over" or that nobody's allowed to have a different opinion or should be jailed for disagreeing. The scientists are just doing their science. You seem to have concluded that climate change science is a "religion" or some flawed, biased discipline, but you're basing that on how the science is used to justify political or other positions, not on the science itself. That's a common but elementary error.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Alarmists say the debate is over. No other field of science says that. Ever.
> Alarmists say that you are not allowed to have a different opinion. No other field of science says that. Ever.
> Alarmists want those who disagree to be jailed. No other field of science says that. Ever.
> 
> Cliamatism is a religion, and you can't reason with religious nuts.


That's idiotic. For example the 'debate' of creationism vs natural selection? Debate is over.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> That's idiotic. For example the 'debate' of creationism vs natural selection? Debate is over.


Funny you say "the debate is over". That's exactly what climate "science" says...unlike every other branch of science where the debate is never over.

But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with creationism, no matter how many times you try to claim that it does. More deflection to cover a weak argument??


----------



## FI40 (Apr 6, 2015)

The article's title is a bit misleading. From the article itself, it sounds like more of a decision on which textbooks to use. Would you prefer a textbook that says "there's debate about whether climate change is happening" or one that says "it's almost certainly happening because of us"? So they make a decision on which textbook to show the kids. Big deal.

I assume what's going on is if a kid wants to read the other textbook, they can, but it's not the curriculum. This sounds fine to me. The article title might make someone think they're burning books like the Nazis.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

FI40 said:


> Would you prefer a textbook that says "there's debate about whether climate change is happening" or one that says "it's almost certainly happening because of us"? So they make a decision on which textbook to show the kids. Big deal.


Actually, it is a big deal because there is plenty of debate. By banning the second choice, they then eliminate debate, which is something that a faith or religion does. They indoctrinate the youth by removing opposing viewpoints.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)




----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Funny you say "the debate is over". That's exactly what climate "science" says...unlike every other branch of science where the debate is never over.
> 
> But again, this has absolutely nothing to do with creationism, no matter how many times you try to claim that it does. More deflection to cover a weak argument??


As a practicing scientist, this is not how science works. We don't spend all of our days debating all science minutia every single day. No body has time for that and it would be a complete waste of time. See Isaac Newton quote earlier int thread.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Actually, it is a big deal because there is plenty of debate. By banning the second choice, they then eliminate debate, which is something that a faith or religion does. They indoctrinate the youth by removing opposing viewpoints.


One thing that is still up for debate (and worth of discussion) is what policy objectives are viable and cost effective to curb (if possible) climate change impacts into the future. How can we adapt and what measures can we do that will mitigate climate change impacts without blowing up our economies. THAT is worth discussing (although not with you people).


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> One thing that is still up for debate (and worth of discussion) is what policy objectives are viable and cost effective to curb (if possible) climate change impacts into the future. How can we adapt and what measures can we do that will mitigate climate change impacts without blowing up our economies. THAT is worth discussing (although not with you people).


Wrong again. The real question is whether or not a minor increase of CO2 will harm the planet. At this point, no one has proven there to be a problem. In fact, many credible scientists argue that increased CO2 is better for the planet. CO2 is an essential trace gas that is required for life on Earth to exist, it's not a toxic poison. It makes the planet greener and this has been verified by satellite data. Greenhouses buy CO2 generators for a reason, you know.

We also need to know what the "right" temperature is, and we need solid measurements that are not "adjusted" by NASA. The weather stations must be moved away from airport runways, asphalt roads, and urban areas so that the data is accurate and doesn't pick up jet exhaust, air conditioner vents, or heat off pavement. Weather stations that used to be in open fields are now next to roads and buildings...how can those temps be accurately compared to the past?

In the meantime, school boards ban books with even the hint of a suggestion that there just might be two sides to the story. California tried to pass legislation to allow the government to sue people who DISAGREED with them.

To all those on the alarmist side...you're the useful idiots of today. Congratulations!!


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

The Sceptics

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

Excellent video, but it is too bad so many of the "sceptics" in the audience had little grasp of all the factors in climate change or don't appear to understand that climate change is a global phenomena.

The scientist on stage was excellent in his explanations, even though at times his attempt at the most simplistic presentation of the complex data went over their heads.

As an example, the guy scoffing at human contribution of 3% carbon dioxide is in excess of the perfectly balanced 97% of carbon dioxide that ebbs and flows naturally changes in the seasons and is cumulative year after year.

Perhaps the level of understanding would be better by changing the % to say the earth creates 100% of the right amount of carbon dioxide to sustain life and humans are adding an additional 3% a year on top of that perfect balance.

The scientist then went on to explain why excess carbon dioxide is not a good thing for sustainability of the planet.

I also like his approach to climate change as "risk management", and I have heard it before.

Even a 1% risk of total planetary destruction isn't an acceptable risk if it can be avoided regardless of the monetary cost.

As the scientist said.........if there was only a 1 in 100 chance a person's home could burn down should they stop buying fire insurance to save money.

It is interesting that the insurance companies are one corporate sector which follows the climate change science very closely. They also have their own records and data going back for more than a hundred years. 

The management of risk is at the core of their industry, and they unequivocally state their costs have consistently been rising due to climate change.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

I do wonder if the odds are higher that the earth will be destroyed by a super volcanic eruption or a meteor strike long before climate change gets us.

Or even maybe, Donald Trump gets elected and starts WWW3..................


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> That's idiotic. For example the 'debate' of creationism vs natural selection? Debate is over.


This thread is not about creationism vs natural selection. Debate that in the God created the universe thread. 

this thread is about Portland schools banning *science* that does not support the politically preferred perspective. For example, the site: -

http://www.co2science.org

is a science site that focuses on the science of CO2. It does not support the politically correct alleged majority view and it consistently cites *primary* research to support its perspective. So this *science* site would be off limits to students in Portland. To me that's a disgrace, to say the least. Banning differing perspectives within science is not a search for the truth. It is an attempt to bolster support for a single view and brainwash kids into that view.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

bass player said:


> Actually, it is a big deal because there is plenty of debate. By banning the second choice, they then eliminate debate, which is something that a faith or religion does. They indoctrinate the youth by removing opposing viewpoints.


Precisely.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Pluto said:


> For example, the site: -
> 
> http://www.co2science.org
> 
> is a science site that focuses on the science of CO2. It does not support the politically correct alleged majority view and it consistently cites *primary* research to support its perspective.


Oh, please. That site is run by Sherwood Idso and his family, and is best described as a confirmation bias site. It's like Mark's Daily Apple, the confirmation-bias site for people who follow paleo diets. What both sites do is to collect all the published, peer-reviewed studies that support a particular position, and to ignore or dismiss all the studies that don't support that position. That's not science, it's advocacy.

I've been following Idso's work for nearly 30 years now; he's a leader among the skeptics who argue that increasing CO2 is a good thing for the planet. And yes, there are many studies showing how higher CO2 benefits certain types of plants, mainly in controlled settings such as greenhouses or laboratories. And only certain types of plants benefit from higher CO2, not all do. 

The main issue is that most of those studies fail to account for the other impacts of increasing CO2 that will be happening simultaneously with the increase in CO2, such as changes in temperature and precipitation patterns, which also affect plant growth. In some cases (e.g., Idso's), they don't account for those impacts because the researchers don't believe in them. If you don't think CO2 is going to change the climate, obviously you're going to think it's a great thing for the planet -- Idso did a video years ago called The Greening of Planet Earth in which he painted exactly that kind of verdant scenario.

The Idsos also participate in the "Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change," which was started by professional skeptic S. Fred Singer, who has made a good living by attacking a number of "big science" consensus views, including ozone depletion and climate change.

Of course, you are going to tell me that the IPCC and the other assessment processes are also "advocacy and not science," and there's of course no way to convince you otherwise; your mind is made up. But at least the IPCC includes papers by skeptics in its assessments; even some of the prominent skeptics are members of the IPCC, and skeptical positions are discussed in the IPCC reports. That's different from what you see on co2science.org, which only presents one view. The IPCC considers all views and then makes conclusions based on the weight of the evidence.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

brad said:


> And yes, there are many studies showing how higher CO2 benefits certain types of plants, mainly in controlled settings such as greenhouses or laboratories. And only certain types of plants benefit from higher CO2, not all do.


Really? What plants do not benefit from increased CO2? And what studies prove that increased CO2 benefits only happen in a lab? 

Are you aware of the logarithmic affect of CO2? That the vast majority of any CO2 induced warming has already happened and that even doubling CO2 will have little to no effect?

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide/


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

bass player said:


> Really? What plants do not benefit from increased CO2? And what studies prove that increased CO2 benefits only happen in a lab?


You can read about C3 versus C4 plants here on the Smithsonian Institution lab's site: http://www.serc.si.edu/labs/co2/c3_c4_plants.aspx

By the way, that lab is studying CO2 enrichment in natural environments. If you read my post above carefully you'll see that I never said "increased CO2 benefits only happen in a lab." You twisted what I said into what you wanted to hear me say. CO2 benefits are being seen in the real world, there's no doubt that CO2 fertilization is occurring. The problem is that as the climate changes, some of those benefits will be offset by things like longer and more frequent droughts, changes in precipitation intensity, extreme events (storms, heatwaves, etc.), all of which also have big impacts on plants. It's simplistic to say that "CO2 is good for plants, so more CO2 must be better." You won't read the IPCC reports, but if you did you'd see extensive discussion of CO2 fertilization, its limits, and caveats. That's a much more balanced and comprehensive discussion than you'll ever find on co2science.org.

As for the logarithmic effect based on saturation, this is an ages-old argument that has been settled for years; skeptics periodically "rediscover" it and trot it out as if it were a new discovery, but all of this is already incorporated into IPCC and other projections. See http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/06/a-saturated-gassy-argument/ for example.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> The Sceptics
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hCRafyV0zI


OK I watched your video. Some questions before I comment on the video: 1. Have you read the Structure of Scientific Revolutions (Kuhn)? 2. Did you read any of this site http://www.co2science.org

About the Stephen Schneider video:

1. "I believe". someone in the audience of skeptics said they believed this or that. Schneider said it is not about belief, it is about evidence. That is an allusion to a defunct philosophical theory of knowledge that science has actually never practiced. He either does not know what he is talking about , or he is fibbing. There is no such thing as "evidence" without reliance on some belief. All of science relies on the assumption that their methods are valid and reliable.
Later in the video he said "I've long been a believer..." There you go. That's more like it. With that phrase, "I've long been a believer" he started talking like an actual scientist instead of a mixed up philosopher.

2. The topic of the assignment of certainty/confidence. clearly this is an issue of judgment and evaluation. Scientists make judgments. They evaluate. Get that. The word evaluate contains the word "value". this relates to facts and values. evidence and values. Schneider stated he judges that some scientists over state the risk, and some understate it and some are in the middle. Well there you go. Apparent disagreement among scientists. Also when he makes the claim that some understate and others over state that is *his personal* judgment and evaluation. There is no such thing as "evidence" or "facts" outside of personal judgment and evaluation.

3. Flowing from that: The Portland school board, instead of teaching and promoting critical thinking, bans scientific sources that do not support the preferred perspective.

4. Schneider did acknowledge that over the last 20 years or so that the warming flattened/paused. He doesn't seem to think that therefore there might be something awry with the model since the model didn't predict the flattening. That implies a *faith* in a model that didn't work. Apparently the Portland school board bans material that would counter that faith.

none, did you check out the material and videos on CO2science.org? It is authored by scientists who consistently refer to primary scientific sources and research. I prefer that to getting my perspective filtered by IPCC, a political body.

5. They discussed Greenland and Schneider claimed the warming there was greater than several degrees C. He got called on that. 1.5C a skeptic said. Schneider backed off and agreed. He was accused of exaggerating, which he was. Then he said something along the lines of you can't use an exact (temperature) number for Greenland because it is different in different parts. An astonishing claim considering one could then apply that principle to the whole globe. They average the whole earth, but you can't average Greenland.

Did he convince me? He convinced me that he is a believer that warming is bad. But he didn't prove warming is bad. He convinced me that a pause in warming, contrary to what his model predicted, doesn't shake his faith. He convinced me that he appeals to a flawed epistemology when he claimed it isn't about belief, but then back tracks into believing. 

All in all it was a run of the mill video. No eureka moment in it.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> Oh, please. That site is run by Sherwood Idso and his family, and is best described as a confirmation bias site. It's like Mark's Daily Apple, the confirmation-bias site for people who follow paleo diets. What both sites do is to collect all the published, peer-reviewed studies that support a particular position, and to ignore or dismiss all the studies that don't support that position. That's not science, it's advocacy.
> 
> I've been following Idso's work for nearly 30 years now; he's a leader among the skeptics who argue that increasing CO2 is a good thing for the planet. And yes, there are many studies showing how higher CO2 benefits certain types of plants, mainly in controlled settings such as greenhouses or laboratories. And only certain types of plants benefit from higher CO2, not all do.
> 
> ...


1. Brad, what you are doing in this post is what I want to see happening in schools, that is, dialogue and mutual critique of differing perspectives. What you and none have been promoting is uncritical acceptance of your personal evaluation and interpretation of the state of affairs concerning climate. Unfortunately, that is what the Portland school system wants too by filtering out differing scientific perspectives. My view is don't filter them out by banning, dialogue and critique. Then the kids learn critical thinking. Banning is brainwashing. 

2. One of your underlying assumptions is that you are neutral and objective while every one who critiques is therefore just wrong. There is no neutral objective view. 

3. Idso *evaluates* the state of affairs concerning CO2. And so do you. But you assume that your *evaluation* is better. On what grounds? Science is permeated by values and personal judgment. You assume change is bad. Somehow you don't see that as an assumption. You uncritically accept that change is bad. That's part of your faith. 

4. I am not trying to get you to believe as Idso does, I am trying to demonstrate that you are making judgments and evaluations that rely on *assumptions*. More CO2 helps some plants more than other plants. Some of the additional co2 comes from humans burning fossil fuel. Therefore what humans are doing is bad. But it doesn't follow. The conclusion that what humans are doing is bad is an assumption, not a indubitably true conclusion. Don't you get that? 

5. Schneider claimed in the BBC video that a corn field is artificial. That is a statement of faith. Clearly he is making an assumption that humans are not part of nature. I assume that if beavers chewed down some trees and built a dam on a nearby stream, he would say that is natural. But if the human animal chopped down some trees and built a dam that's artificial and outside nature. You see what ever other animals do is always good, and what the human animal does is pre-believed to be evil. That prescientific belief that humans are outside of nature and are doing evil things is an article of faith within the extremist environmental ideology. The human animal has as much right to plant a cornfield as other animals have to interact with and effect natural change. 

The upshot is, I find dialogue and mutual critique as part of a free scientific process. I find banning material, apparently with the intent to brainwash, unscientific and totalitarian. The underlying issues aren't just about climate change, its about the keeping science free of interference from political and totalitarian processes.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

brad said:


> The problem is that as the climate changes, some of those benefits will be offset by things like longer and more frequent droughts, changes in precipitation intensity, extreme events (storms, heatwaves, etc.), all of which also have big impacts on plants.


There is no proof of that. In fact, the US has set a record (and counting) for the longest in their recorded history without a major hurricane making landfall. Nothing is happening in the weather today that hasn't happened before or can't be attributed to normal variations.

Once again, the IPCC is a political body that has an agenda. Yes, they get scientific reports, but the ones that don't buy into the agenda are simply ignored and the ones who buy into the agenda get published. Remember...this is the IPCC that proudly displayed Michael Mann's flawed "hockey stick" graph prominently in at least 2 of their reports, and then once it was shown to be less than accurate, they quietly removed it as if it had never existed. No correction was made...they simply pretended that it had never happened and moved along to other claims that support their agenda. By the way, Michael Mann tried to sue the person who outed his graph as flawed, but now refuses to provide the data under discovery laws. So...the biggest threat to mankind (according to many) was largely based on a flawed graph where the creator of the graph refuses to show how he arrived at the results. Even a child can grasp how suspicious that is.

Only in climate "science" is data hidden. The biggest threat to mankind and no one can provide proof...they simply make claims based on guesswork and climate models with a massive failure rate and expect people to believe them without question. Then they try to ban or sue those who disagree. How gullible does one have to be to continue to fall for this? It is truly mind boggling that supposedly intelligent adults fall for logic that wouldn't fool a 5-year old child.

The greening of the planet is well known and verified by satellite data. Alarmist claims attempt to downplay the greening or claim that it is selective are pure BS and another example of how desperate the alarmist movement has become.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Okay, bass player and pluto, you've convinced me. I'm heading out now to buy a Hummer. Or two.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

OK, so now we can all agree that big oil was right, and co2 is making the planet greener, so, the more the better, phwew, that's a relief.

The religion people were right to close their ears and eyes after all, to all that irritating 'science' and any further talk of accurately calculating 'risk', praise be to God!
Let us rejoice in the glory of that wonderous website co2science and all the slanted reports on cherry-picked studies, which helped guide us through these difficult times.



brad said:


> Okay, bass player and pluto, you've convinced me. I'm heading out now to buy a Hummer. Or two.


Great plan!
While you're out there brad, why not pick up one of these beauties?


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

mrPPincer said:


> OK, so now we can all agree that big oil was right...


Yup...it's all a massive propaganda campaign by Big Oil, lol. I guess you believe everything you hear from Big Green and Big Govt?


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

It's a joke, that we are even discussing this Fox news BS piece this long, Portland schools dropped some crappy books from the curriculum, because they were outdated.

Because there are better books now.

That is not book-burning, or cencorship, it's just smart.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

mrPPincer said:


> It's a joke, that we are even discussing this Fox news BS piece this long, Portland schools dropped some crappy books from the curriculum, because they were outdated.
> 
> Because there are better books now.
> 
> That is not book-burning, or cencorship, it's just smart.


Bingo.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Bingo.


And yet when you thought it was about banning a book, you wholeheartedly supported the position. So, whether the books were banned or not, the fact remains that you are in total agreement with government censorship of opposing views. And, that's the real issue...not after the fact "spin" trying to cover their tracks.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Same thing. "Ban" / stop using it - a rose by another name - who cares?

Jesus man. Move on.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

misinformation can be dangerous

Here is a great vid that I like to share from time to time on understanding conformity..


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Same thing. "Ban" / stop using it - a rose by another name - who cares?
> 
> Jesus man. Move on.


Your level of ignorance is outstanding.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Your level of ignorance is outstanding.


Similarly, your level of ignorance is astounding.

PS I'm rubber, you're glue.....


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Similarly, your level of ignorance is astounding.
> 
> PS I'm rubber, you're glue.....


At least I don't support government thought control.

I'm done with you, you are beyond reason.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> At least I don't support government thought control.
> 
> I'm done with you, you are beyond reason.


I agree. Raisins ruin everything. Consensus reached!!!


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

sags said:


> Excellent video, but it is too bad so many of the "sceptics" in the audience had little grasp of all the factors in climate change or don't appear to understand that climate change is a global phenomena.
> 
> The scientist on stage was excellent in his explanations, even though at times his attempt at the most simplistic presentation of the complex data went over their heads.
> 
> ...


I didn't think he was that good sags. 

Schneider claimed Greenland temps had increased more than several degrees. One of the skeptics called him on it and said it was 1.5C. Then Schneider agreed he had exaggerated. He then claimed that you can't use one temp figure for Greenland because it is different temps in different areas. But that's what he and his ilk does for the whole globe. If you can't average Greenland temps, how can on average the entire globe? Really Stanford is wasting money on this guy....but wait, maybe they are gaining. If he can plant the idea of doom in people 's minds, the money keeps pouring in to stop the alleged catastrophe. 

These guys will continue to evangelize and exaggerate to promote their personal subjective views that they are needed to save the world. Televangelism.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

mrPPincer said:


> OK, so now we can all agree that big oil was right, and co2 is making the planet greener, so, the more the better, phwew, that's a relief.
> 
> The religion people were right to close their ears and eyes after all, to all that irritating 'science' and any further talk of accurately calculating 'risk', praise be to God!
> Let us rejoice in the glory of that wonderous website co2science and all the slanted reports on cherry-picked studies, which helped guide us through these difficult times.
> ...


There is no big oil conspiracy. Big oil has made it clear they are not in the oil business, they are in the energy business, and oil happens to be in great demand so they sell it. Boone Pickens a big oil guy also has wind farms. Why? cause he is in the energy business. The big energy companies don't care where the energy comes from. 
Its just a subjective bias for some to pick on big oil. I haven't encountered any credible evidence that big oil is is trying to sabotage alternate sources of energy. Instead, if it is a viable source, they get on the band wagon as start doing it too.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

Pluto said:


> There is no big oil conspiracy. Big oil has made it clear they are not in the oil business, they are in the energy business, and oil happens to be in great demand so they sell it. Boone Pickens a big oil guy also has wind farms. Why? cause he is in the energy business. The big energy companies don't care where the energy comes from.
> Its just a subjective bias for some to pick on big oil. I haven't encountered any credible evidence that big oil is is trying to sabotage alternate sources of energy. Instead, if it is a viable source, they get on the band wagon as start doing it too.


I agree. The same argument is made by those who claimed that the electric car was killed by Big Oil or the major car companies back in the 80's.. Those in power at oil and car companies don't care if people want electric cars, gas powered cars, solar powered cars, or horse drawn wagons. They will simply diversify, sell what the people want, and continue to rake in the money. Alternative energy is just another source of income for them...it's certainly not a threat.


----------



## sags (May 15, 2010)

At the end of the day it doesn't matter much what I believe. The overwhelming majority of scientists who study climate change have expressed their considered opinions to form a consensus and I will accept it as the correct one.

I would do it in the same manner that I place my faith and confidence in the other sciences and professionals such as medicine and engineering.

To do otherwise I would be afraid to have a needed surgical procedure or enter a high rise building.


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

Question for those who believe 'the science is settled' and all debate must be silenced and new research banned.

What happens if someone finds the cure? What if some skeptic discovers a flaw that leads to a new line of research, and finds a way to eliminate climate change for the cost of a cup of coffee? That kind of thing happens all the time in science - where the thought police don't prevent it.


----------



## mrPPincer (Nov 21, 2011)

Rusty, I think those three qualifiers eliminate basically everybody.

Good question though, there are potential solutions, such as launching global shading with airborne particles, but that can be risky, possibly leading to another ice age, no point going off half-cocked, we as a species need to have as full an understanding of the science as we are capable of, imho.


----------



## Eder (Feb 16, 2011)

http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm

ya gotta believe


----------



## Rusty O'Toole (Feb 1, 2012)

I think it's safe to say there are things we don't know about climate science, and in future the people who say 'the science is settled' will look as quaint as the people who said 'it is impossible for a heavier than air machine to fly' or 'man is not meant to know the secrets of the atom'.

What if freezing climate science at a 2015 level prevents discovering some important new science that could cure the problem? It is evident that climate science is already stymied by the warmist fanatics and some would go even farther, banning any discussion of new ideas and even jailing or killing anyone who disagrees with the orthodox view.

And it's not as if we know enough now. The best the warmists can come up with is 'cap and trade' which even its exponents agree will not stop global warming or climate change but only tax it. What if the cure is right around the corner but we never find it because no one is allowed to look for it?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

Actually it's more akin to people saying 'smoking causes cancer' in th 60's and people claiming the science is settles despite extremely heavy evidence to the contrary.

Give me a break.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

none said:


> Actually it's more akin to people saying 'smoking causes cancer' in th 60's and people claiming the science is settles despite extremely heavy evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Give me a break.


Are you being sarcastic? 
A cause is necessary and sufficient conditions. Since non-smokers get cancer smoking is not necessary to get it, and hence it is not the cause of it. 

(It does however, increase the risk of cancer.)


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Cancer is not actually the main risk of smoking; vascular diseases kill more smokers than all cancers combined. But it's been well established through multiple studies that 50 percent of smokers die from smoking-related causes, and about half of the people who die from those diseases die before they're 50 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2362092/). It's also well established that smoking reduces lifespan. It's also true that cigarette smoking is linked to about 90 percent of lung cancers. See http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/lung/basic_info/risk_factors.htm and http://www.livescience.com/3093-smoking-myths-examined.html for example.

When you say " Since non-smokers get cancer smoking is not necessary to get it, and hence it is not the cause of it," you could just as easily say that "people who eat well still get hungry, therefore lack of food is not the cause of hunger." Sure, lack of food is not *the only* cause of hunger, but clearly *it is a cause* of hunger, right? You're being unnecessarily restrictive.

And this isn't just a correlation/causation thing: the mechanisms are pretty well understood and DNA analysis has shown mutations occurring after smoking just one cigarette. Same with climate change, really: the mechanism is crystal clear and proven: CO2 and other greenhouse gases trap heat; that's not theory, it's proven fact and can (and has) been demonstrated in simple lab experiments. The big uncertainties have to do with how the climate system responds to that added heat. But Occam's Razor applies here: when you have a clear mechanism, does it really make sense to ignore that as the most likely cause and instead latch on to all kinds of farfetched alternative theories?


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

brad said:


> When you say " Since non-smokers get cancer smoking is not necessary to get it, and hence it is not the cause of it," you could just as easily say that "people who eat well still get hungry, therefore lack of food is not the cause of hunger." Sure, lack of food is not *the only* cause of hunger, but clearly *it is a cause* of hunger, right? You're being unnecessarily restrictive.
> 
> But Occam's Razor applies here: when you have a clear mechanism, does it really make sense to ignore that as the most likely cause and instead latch on to all kinds of farfetched alternative theories?


When talking about causes, one should use only necessary and sufficient conditions. Otherwise one muddies with water with factors that are not necessary and sufficient. One should categorize smoking as increasing risk, not a cause. If one says a risk is a cause, one is not being precise and precision is supposed to be part of scientific methods.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

Pluto said:


> When talking about causes, one should use only necessary and sufficient conditions. Otherwise one muddies with water with factors that are not necessary and sufficient. One should categorize smoking as increasing risk, not a cause. If one says a risk is a cause, one is not being precise and precision is supposed to be part of scientific methods.


Accuracy is more important than precision: you can be very precise without being accurate.

If you fire a gun at someone and that person dies, ordinarily you can say the person was killed by a gunshot. Sure, the bullet itself didn't kill the person, what killed them was the organ damage and internal bleeding caused by the bullet. But that's really semantics. You can say that the person was killed by a gunshot and still be accurate, even if you aren't providing a 19-point explanation of every physiological impact caused by the bullet that led to the person's death.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Actually it's more akin to people saying 'smoking causes cancer' in th 60's and people claiming the science is settles despite extremely heavy evidence to the contrary.
> 
> Give me a break.


What does smoking have to do with the climate?

That's right...absolutely nothing. Alarmists have become so desperate that they will say anything to try to convince others that they are right, including making false analogies like you just did in an attempt to prove their point.

Remember these claims: "The artic will be ice free by 2015" and "Your children will never know what snow is", etc., etc., etc. Once a claim is proven wrong, they simply move the goal posts further into the future and pretend that their previous predictions of doom and gloom never happened.


----------



## Pluto (Sep 12, 2013)

bass player said:


> What does smoking have to do with the climate?
> 
> That's right...absolutely nothing. Alarmists have become so desperate that they will say anything to try to convince others that they are right, including making false analogies like you just did in an attempt to prove their point.
> 
> Remember these claims: "The artic will be ice free by 2015" and "Your children will never know what snow is", etc., etc., etc. Once a claim is proven wrong, they simply move the goal posts further into the future and pretend that their previous predictions of doom and gloom never happened.


Yep. And they wonder why people don't take them seriously. 
They say they are evidence based, but when an observation doesn't fit their theory, they keep the theory and reject the evidence.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> Remember these claims: "The artic will be ice free by 2015" and "Your children will never know what snow is", etc., etc., etc. Once a claim is proven wrong, they simply move the goal posts further into the future and pretend that their previous predictions of doom and gloom never happened.


Forecasting is hard. Look at the housing bubble - it hasn't imploded yet but most people think it's extremely high risk to buy in vancouver right now. Timing things exactly is hard.

Seems like we are well on our way:
http://www.popsci.com/may-breaks-new-record-for-arctic-sea-ice-loss

The ice free in 2015 wasn't a widely accepted forecast so i don't really understand what you are exaggerating about.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Forecasting is hard. Look at the housing bubble - it hasn't imploded yet but most people think it's extremely high risk to buy in vancouver right now. Timing things exactly is hard.
> 
> Seems like we are well on our way:
> http://www.popsci.com/may-breaks-new-record-for-arctic-sea-ice-loss
> ...


What does the housing market have to do with the weather? that's right...absolutely nothing. Do you see the pattern that your weak arguments are taking?

Perhaps the "ice-free" comment wasn't widely accepted, but it made headlines across the world and no one on the alarmist side bothered to correct it or say that it was an exaggeration. Therefore, they either believed it, or they were willing to let a lie be spread to further their cause.

However, what was widely accepted was the famous "hockey stick" graph that made the front page of consecutive IPCC reports. Once that was proven to be fraudulent, they quietly removed it and pretended it never existed. Michael Mann is trying to sue the person who proved the graph to be fraudulent, but he still refuses to provide discovery as ordered by the court. And, once again, all the alarmists have gone silent on this issue.

Every time the alarmists are proven wrong they then pretend that nothing happened, and they lose more and more credibility. They have lost so much credibility that at this point they are nothing but a joke. You have bought into the agenda so deeply that you are blind to the obvious.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

bass player said:


> What does the housing market have to do with the weather? that's right...absolutely nothing. Do you see the pattern that your weak arguments are taking?
> 
> Perhaps the "ice-free" comment wasn't widely accepted, but it made headlines across the world and no one on the alarmist side bothered to correct it or say that it was an exaggeration. Therefore, they either believed it, or they were willing to let a lie be spread to further their cause.
> 
> ...


I used housing as an example about how forecasting is hard. A common saying (from me at least) is forecasting is like driving a car by looking in the rear view mirror. To the uneducated that sounds hack but in reality that's mostly what we're stuck with. I thought this being a financial forum my housing bubble analogy would be helpful.

To your claim about the non-widely accepted ice-free point which ironically supports my thesis: not everyone deserves to have an opinion or be in a debate. Yes, a single person (or group) should not be given a large podium for the debate equal to broad scientific consensus. Thanks for providing an example proving my point.

Hockey stick graph was correct even though some of the methods were problematic:

"More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."

That demonstrates a very robust finding - that numerous methods (even one's that are not totally correct) still point in the same direction. That again, greatly adds to the weight of evidence.

So what's your next plan to totally undermine your argument? :stupid:


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> Hockey stick graph was correct even though some of the methods were problematic:
> 
> "More than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records, have supported the broad consensus shown in the original 1998 hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears.[12][13] The 2007 IPCC Fourth Assessment Report cited 14 reconstructions, 10 of which covered 1,000 years or longer, to support its strengthened conclusion that it was likely that Northern Hemisphere temperatures during the 20th century were the highest in at least the past 1,300 years.[14] Over a dozen subsequent reconstructions, including Mann et al. 2008 and PAGES 2k Consortium 2013, have supported these general conclusions."


It's true that all those independent studies corroborated the hockey stick graph, but they basically used the same underlying data, most of which is proxy data since no thermometer network was in place before the 1880s or so. There's considerable uncertainty in those data (which is why those reconstructions always show error bars).

However, we don't need the hockey stick graph to "prove" that the climate is changing:

The last month in which the global average temperature was lower than the 20th century mean was February 1985, and the last year in which the annual global average temperature was below the 20th century mean was 1977 (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413). Every year since 1977, and every month since February 1985 has been warmer than average, even if not every month or year was warmer than the previous month or year. That's more than 38 years and 372 months in a row of warmer than average temperatures.

I think we've seen the same thing in the stock market, actually, based on this graph of the Dow:










Most people would view this as an indication of economic growth, but I imagine there'll always be some people who question it.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

brad said:


> It's true that all those independent studies corroborated the hockey stick graph, but they basically used the same underlying data, most of which is proxy data since no thermometer network was in place before the 1880s or so. There's considerable uncertainty in those data (which is why those reconstructions always show error bars).
> 
> .


Depends what you consider to be 'considerable uncertainty'. Tree rings, fish otoliths, diatom species assemblages, all correlate extremely well to temperature and it's unreasonable to expect that relationship (particularly when there is a well established causal mechanism) would for some reason disappear once thermometers were invented.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> Depends what you consider to be 'considerable uncertainty'. Tree rings, fish otoliths, diatom species assemblages, all correlate extremely well to temperature and it's unreasonable to expect that relationship (particularly when there is a well established causal mechanism) would for some reason disappear once thermometers were invented.


It's true (I spent a few months reconstructing past temperatures using fossil foraminerfa), and since we have multiple sources of proxy data they provide a good cross-correlation. But it's still not as good as an instrument-based temperature record, certainly not as precise.

My point is that you can throw out all the controversial indicators of climate change and still have incontrovertible evidence that it's happening. "Why" is a different question, of course.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

No data are perfect. Even with today's temperature probes, they fall out of calibration and do vary. Do current temp probes record to the 50th decimal place? No they don't and they don't have to.

The necessary precision of data are dependent on what you plan on doing with it. If you were trying to identify fraction of degree changes over the last couple centuries theses data likely would not have sufficient resolution (precision); however, with the changes that have observes, historical temperature proxies are more than sufficient.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

brad said:


> However, we don't need the hockey stick graph to "prove" that the climate is changing:
> 
> The last month in which the global average temperature was lower than the 20th century mean was February 1985, and the last year in which the annual global average temperature was below the 20th century mean was 1977 (see http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/201413). Every year since 1977, and every month since February 1985 has been warmer than average, even if not every month or year was warmer than the previous month or year. That's more than 38 years and 372 months in a row of warmer than average temperatures.


Ah yes...NOAA, who has still refuses to explain to a congressional hearing why they have cooled the past and warmed recent years. Until that question is answered, everything they say is suspect. The unaltered satellite data shows little to no warming at all in the last 18+ years. That's a fact. The "adjusted" data shows warming, but they refuse to explain the adjustments. The most serious crisis facing mankind, and the adjustments to the data are too secret to be revealed.... :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

none said:


> Hockey stick graph was correct even though some of the methods were problematic:


Yup...it's definitely a "problem" when both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age were completely eliminated. It's definitely a "problem" when tree rings from one tree in Quebec were used to reconstruct temperature data for the majority of the northern hemisphere...especially when it is a known fact that tree rings are a poor indicator of temperature.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> No data are perfect. Even with today's temperature probes, they fall out of calibration and do vary. Do current temp probes record to the 50th decimal place? No they don't and they don't have to.
> 
> The necessary precision of data are dependent on what you plan on doing with it. If you were trying to identify fraction of degree changes over the last couple centuries theses data likely would not have sufficient resolution (precision); however, with the changes that have observes, historical temperature proxies are more than sufficient.


Agreed; I was mainly thinking of this paper, which provides a critical review of paleoclimate reconstructions and points to the things that need to be fixed to improve confidence in them: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/wcc.53/abstract


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

bass player said:


> Ah yes...NOAA, who has still refuses to explain to a congressional hearing why they have cooled the past and warmed recent years. Until that question is answered, everything they say is suspect. The unaltered satellite data shows little to no warming at all in the last 18+ years. That's a fact. The "adjusted" data shows warming, but they refuse to explain the adjustments. The most serious crisis facing mankind, and the adjustments to the data are too secret to be revealed....


I assume you get this from Fox News or some other unbiased source? 

The "unaltered" satellite data are known to be wrong, as many studies have pointed out, and the different methods for correcting them are openly documented in published studies and publicly on government websites; see for example this NASA website: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/blogs/climateqa/have-satellites-actually-observed-cooling/ and this paper published by NOAA scientists: http://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/smcd/emb/mscat/documents/Zou.2010.JTech.Stability.pdf

Oh, and if you don't trust NOAA's data that's fine -- there are three other independent data sets (NASA, UK Met Office, and Japan Meteorological Agency) that show the exact same thing.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

It's all a conspiracy! You can't trust any data except the stuff that *** player pulled out of his bass! LOL. What an idiot.


----------



## brad (May 22, 2009)

none said:


> It's all a conspiracy!


Even farmers are in on the conspiracy; they're somehow making it look like the growing season has increased over most of the United States over the past century, when we all know that can't possibly be true because the world isn't warming:

http://public.tableau.com/profile/icf.information.insights#!/vizhome/HealthandSociety/Dashboard1


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

I think *** player disputes the role of humans in that increase, not the increase itself. Or maybe that's not it. That dude is so full of contradiction and confusion it's hard to keep up.


----------



## bass player (Jan 27, 2016)

brad said:


> Even farmers are in on the conspiracy; they're somehow making it look like the growing season has increased over most of the United States over the past century, when we all know that can't possibly be true because the world isn't warming:
> 
> http://public.tableau.com/profile/icf.information.insights#!/vizhome/HealthandSociety/Dashboard1


The US only makes up about 4% of the world...that's hardly a fair indication of the entire planet. But...who thinks that increasing CO2 that yields more crop growth, and a longer growing season is bad other than a climate alarmist?


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

*** player, if ecosystems were only as simple as you.

http://www.nature.com/news/co2-makes-growing-seasons-longer-1.15081


----------



## OnlyMyOpinion (Sep 1, 2013)

none said:


> It's all a conspiracy! You can't trust any data except the stuff that *** player pulled out of his bass! LOL. What an idiot.


Resorting to the abuse of name calling doesn't further an argument or debate. It is actually the lowest form of response.


----------



## none (Jan 15, 2013)

OnlyMyOpinion said:


> Resorting to the abuse of name calling doesn't further an argument or debate. It is actually the lowest form of response.


Sometimes you just have to call a spade a spade. Anyway, it wasn't a debate. It was a moron spouting drivel and me making fun of him.


----------

