Portland schools ban textbooks that question climate change

a reply to: Sremmos80

I stand by my previous answer. Many religions have creation stories they believe sincerely is fact. None of them belong in public schools.
Churches and private schools of any religion...then I have no objection.

I also have no objection to privately-funded schools of any kind teaching climate change science exclusively, if they so choose.

a reply to: Glinda

And we haven't even discussed the environmental DANGERS of Wind.

Why yes the sun shines every day, and the wind blows every day.

And if a person happens to live where it's dark six months out of the year.

I guess they are just SOL.

a reply to: IAMTAT

And your previous answer wasn't doesn't address the question...

That wasn't talking about the religion aspect of it, it was about the so called 'science' of it.

Since there exists obvious contention and debate regarding Climate Change among the public.

There is obvious contention and debate regarding that it and the so called science, that is what you are missing.

I have no objection of public schools going with the current scientific explanation of things, once you all get some science to show man has nothing to do with the increase in CO2, or that CO2 doesn't warm things up, people might listen.

a reply to: neo96

Is there no wind at night?

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

I will tell ya whats 'disingenuous' is that for over 50 years green legislation has existed.

Since the GD Nixon administration the EPA has existed.

For over 100 years the STATE has had the power to REGULATE business. ( That's who we are really talking about by the way) when people say 'humans'.) They always out trying to kill people.!

So for over a HALF CENTURY with the state already in control of the air, and water, and land.

Someone needs to tell just what effing problem is there.

What more do the NEOCON fascists trying to control the entire planet WANT ?

What has that to do with climate change and the *possibility* that humans might be contributing?

originally posted by: Liquesence

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Liquesence

I will tell ya whats 'disingenuous' is that for over 50 years green legislation has existed.

Since the GD Nixon administration the EPA has existed.

For over 100 years the STATE has had the power to REGULATE business. ( That's who we are really talking about by the way) when people say 'humans'.) They always out trying to kill people.!

So for over a HALF CENTURY with the state already in control of the air, and water, and land.

Someone needs to tell just what effing problem is there.

What more do the NEOCON fascists trying to control the entire planet WANT ?

What has that to do with climate change and the *possibility* that humans might be contributing?

Seriously ?

SERIOUSLY ?

How the hell can anyone IGNORE those facts ?

HOW ?

The Air Pollution Control Act of 1955 (Pub.L. 84–159, ch. 360, 69 Stat. 322) was the first Clean Air Act (United States) enacted by Congress to address the national environmental problem of air pollution on July 14, 1955. This was "an act to provide research and technical assistance relating to air pollution control".[1] The act "left states principally in charge of prevention and control of air pollution at the source".[2] The act declared that air pollution was a danger to public health and welfare, but preserved the "primary responsibilities and rights of the states and local government in controlling air pollution".[3]

en.wikipedia.org...

Dating back to 1955.

Next up.

The next Congressional statement on air pollution would come with the Clean Air Act of 1963.

Then in 1960

There have been several amendments made to The Air Pollution Act of 1955. The first amendment came in 1960, which extended research funding for four years. The next amendment came in 1962 and basically enforced the principle provisions of the original act. In addition, this amendment also called for research to be done by the Surgeon General. In 1967, the Air Quality Act of 1967 was passed. In 1967,

Then in 1962 agian in 1967, and AGAIN in 1970.

The 1970 amendments completely rewrote the 1967 act. In particular, the 1970 amendments required the newly created The United States Environmental Protection Agency to set the National Ambient Air Quality Standards to protect public health and welfare.

That created the EPA.

So after 60 years people are still whining about the climate.

Obvious pattern here.

Human can't possibly be 'contributing' to 'it' since the STATE has been in control of it for over 50 YEARS.

But hey they need more power to control something they already do!.

Makes 'perfect' sense.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: amazing

Haha. You guys keep talking about Scientists as if they're all morons.

If the shoe fits one must admit.

Climate change is where the MONEY is that created a trillion dollar lobbying where significant tax payer money gets spend without anything to show for it.

Really think they are going to give themselves a pay cut ?

Think politicians are going to give up a nice decisive issue for votes ?

Neither is going to.

Scientists are human after all. Prone to mistakes, and outright corruption.

The planet however does it thing which it's been doing forever without anger,resentment, a paycheck and not for a VOTE.

So according to your logic. Every scientist in earth is lying to us, because of greed. Especially Nasa. Hmmm.

If all Scientists are lying to us, then who IS telling us the truth? Do tell.

And this is bad how exactly?

a reply to: Liquesence

Because it's all a bit leftist conspiracy. Don't you know everything that comes from the left in any way is a big lie and trying to control you.

children should be taught to question things and to be critical thinkers, but the only people questioning climate change are koch employees and people who are so invested in their position of denial that after years of debating it just can't admit they were wrong, so I really have no problem with a school moving ahead with climate change as a real thing

a reply to: Sremmos80
I'm going to assume you're not being intentionally obtuse...and simply misunderstood.

Your argument equates religion with science...ergo, you're also saying science = religion; THAT rationale, if accepted, would exclude any form of science from being taught in PUBLIC schools.

Religious 'Science' (of any faith) is still religion (as it involves a specific deity(s) and has no place in PUBLIC schools.

Private and Church-based schools...Choose for themselves.

a reply to: neo96

I hate to break this to you but EPA doesn't have 100% control over anything and never has. It also has no control over anything outside the United States of America. Private interests have been trying to undermine the EPA since it was conceived. Only recently have they been putting up less of a fight on coal because natural gas is cheaper now. All your post shows is that people cared enough to try to change things not that they controlled things 100%.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: neo96

Is there no wind at night?

Really how can you not see the logic fail of alternative energy ?

Push a technology that depends on the CLIMATE to work.

After screaming its CHANGING.

Meaning it's unreliable.

a reply to: neo96

Because wind and sun is still going to be there...

a reply to: IAMTAT

I will offer you the same, that you are not being intentionally obtuse.
YOU are the one stuck on the religion part, I am saying nothing of the sort.

There are creationists that think they have actual science to back up their claims of their religious story. They want that so called science, not the religion, to be taught.

a reply to: Pyle

How horrible of the government to make sure that companies follow environmental guidelines to prevent distasters that pollute our lakes, oceans and agriculture! Damn lefties want our kids to be able to eat fish out of lakes and go outside without wearing a mask.

a reply to: xuenchen

Yea. The agenda is saving our planet from becoming a life opposing wasteland.

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: xuenchen

Common core doesn't encourage thinking it encourages the recitation of facts selected for you by your friendly, trustworthy Government and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Bring back thinking and question everything...especially your Government.

*shudders*

a reply to: Bobaganoosh

Too bad the youtuber doesn't want clickfree views.

But if it's some girls saying they should listen to their parents and stuff, I wish my 13 year old daughter would. Too bad she's so much like her dad.

a reply to: Phage

Ah bummer, wish I had realized that before posting.

The cringe was frighteningly real with this one.