Tennessee Law Requiring Climate Change Denial Be Taught In Schools

Ok, lets just look at this one simple truth. For a very short period of time, we humans have invented, and now rely on a transportation vehicle that burns a fuel that produces a large amount of CO2. Now millions of these vehicles are used on a daily basis continuing to pump a large amount of a specific gas that is known to remain in our atmosphere and act as a heating insulation. This human made, unnatural AMOUNT of CO2 remains in our atmosphere and leaks out at a much slower rate than it is being produced...can all the anti-global warmers on this post agree on that fact?
That being said, how can you say that humans do not have an effect on the temp of the earth rising? Isn't this a simple cause and effect.

wow after the devastating weather they may experience.. maybe some people will change their minds?

Originally posted by HumansBeing
Ok, lets just look at this one simple truth. For a very short period of time, we humans have invented, and now rely on a transportation vehicle that burns a fuel that produces a large amount of CO2. Now millions of these vehicles are used on a daily basis continuing to pump a large amount of a specific gas that is known to remain in our atmosphere and act as a heating insulation. This human made, unnatural AMOUNT of CO2 remains in our atmosphere and leaks out at a much slower rate than it is being produced...can all the anti-global warmers on this post agree on that fact?
That being said, how can you say that humans do not have an effect on the temp of the earth rising? Isn't this a simple cause and effect.

The key phrase is "very short period of time". Were humans to blame for the Ice Age? Were we to blame for the Warming after the Ice Age?

Earths history condensed into a 24 hour day....

dml.cmnh.org...

Life on Earth (app. 3.8 Ga) 4:10 AM

Eucaryots (app. 2.1 Ga) 13:02 PM

Metazoans (1.2 Ga?) 17:44 PM

Chordates (565 Ma) 21:03 PM

Phanerozoicum (CAMBRIAN 542 Ma) 21:10 PM

ORDOVICIAN (488.3 Ma) 21:27 PM

Land dwelling plants (475 Ma) 21:31 PM

SILURIAN (443.7 Ma) 21:41 PM

Land dwelling animals 21:46 PM

DEVONIAN (416.0 Ma) 21:49 PM

Semi-aquatic vertebrates (360 Ma) 22:07 PM

CARBONIFEROUS (359.2 Ma) 22:07 PM

Reptiles (340 Ma) 22:13 PM

PERMIAN (299.0 Ma) 22:26 PM

TRIASSIC (251.0 Ma) 22:41 PM

Dinosaurs (235 Ma) 22:46 PM

Mammals (225 Ma) 22:49 PM

JURASSIC (199.6 Ma) 22:57 PM

Birds (147 Ma) 23:14 PM

CRETACEOUS (145.5 Ma) 23:14 PM

PALEOCENE (65.5 Ma) 23:39 PM

EOCENE (55.8 Ma) 23:42 PM

OLIGOCENE (33.9 Ma) 23:49 PM

MIOCENE (23.03 Ma) 23:52 PM

Common ape-human ancestor (7 Ma) 23:57 PM

PLIOCENE (5.33 Ma) 23:58 PM

PLEISTOCENE (1.81 Ma) 23:59:26 PM

Homo sapiens (165.000) 23:59:56,9 PM

"Out of Africa" (100.000) 23:59:58,1 PM

Homo s. sapiens (35.000) 23:59:59,3 PM

Extinction of neanderthals (25.000) 23:59:59,5 PM

HOLOCENE (0.01 Ma) 23:59:59,8 PM

Oldest civilizations (3.500) 23:59:59,9 PM

Industrial revolution (250) 23:59:59,999 ?

I don't even think the earth even realizes we are even here yet.

Originally posted by truthinfact
wow after the devastating weather they may experience.. maybe some people will change their minds?

No..they won't. they simply don't understand it and refuse to educate themselves out of principle
For them, it is a pride thing. They simply won't acknowledge it so long as their favorite partisan corporate stooge tells them not to think about it.

If the lands turned into a desert and the oceans were on fire, they would convince themselves it was totally natural.

No worries though, when the damage is done, and we are in a ice age...we can use the offspring of the worst deniers as a fuel and food source

reply to post by Carseller4


offs dude, yes, the planet goes on cycles.
What the discussion is, is making a multi-thousand year process condense down into a few centuries

seriously, stop with this strawman crap. learn what the discussion is, or simply don't particpate.

By your theory...everyone dies, so if everyone dies at age 20, that is perfectly normal..because everyone dies...nothing is odd if everyone suddenly dies at age 20.

-rubs temples-

Originally posted by ManBehindTheMask

Originally posted by braindeadconservatives

Originally posted by Chance321
reply to post by Cantmakedisup

 

So, all thses volcanos that pop off from time to time aren't they pumping more gases into the atmosphere?

How about the fact that Volcanos are physically attached too and apart of planetary bodies.
Volcanos are as natural as Hurricanes, burning 20,000,000 pounds of coal a day is not natural.

Your leaving out the point that theres no way we can produce as much output as these natural occurances do on a regular basis!

yet somehow man is responsible for all this climate change and global warming!

Im all about conserving energy and not wasting things, and picking up our trash and watching how much crap we polute with and put into the ground and our water......

But the fact is EVERY PLANET in the solar system right now is experiencing climate change......

I suppose thats our fault too right? Well......maybe .......with all the CO2 output from these bogus scientist

Your leaving out the point that it is cumulative, aren't you.

You are also, leaving out the fact that particulate matter contributes greatly to absorption of
radiation and the excessive heat associated that is trapped in the atmosphere based upon
constantly adding for particulate volume... But that is too much to consider isn't it?

When sunlight was once reflected by the surface of the ocean, it is now absorbed by the
particles humans release.

It is also a great way to ensure that you and I have to be a slave to and pay for technology
that was engineered and developed hundreds of years ago. Why exploit free energy, when
you can make so much money with the status quo...

reply to post by Carseller4


Before we get way off topic, please just answer this...
This human made, unnatural AMOUNT of CO2 remains in our atmosphere and leaks out at a much slower rate than it is being produced...can all the anti-global warmers on this post agree on that fact?

If you can agree that we are producing an abnormal amount of a specific gas that is ment to trap heat then you can see where humans have a direct effect on the temperature of our current natural earth.

Originally posted by LDragonFire

Originally posted by Carseller4
No coincidence that many red states also have a high percentage of blacks in the population. Make of it what you will, but it does skew the findings.

edit on 27-3-2012 by Carseller4 because: (no reason given)

Your blaming the low or poor numbers of the education levels in reds states on blacks?

I'm blaming the elected government for there failure, not a minority.

His blaming blacks has just as much merit as you blaming republicans

Originally posted by Cantmakedisup
reply to post by dakota1s2

 

You sir, are very ill informed. 99% of climate scientists agree that human interaction has affected global climate change in a negative way. Check out Nova's Extreme Ice. It will show you scientific data that proves the burning of fossil fuels is raising the global temperature. All you have to do is look at the data. It's science, not opinion.

oops, looks like that 99% figure is off by a percent and a half... sorry

edit on 27-3-2012 by Cantmakedisup because: (no reason given)

The scientific data does not prove that fossil fuels are raising the temperature. Correlations do exist but there is also a great possibility of coincindence. The fact is that climate change can not be proved or disproved. It really should be taught as a possibility that will need further study. The argument against fossil fuels is completely off track anyways. I am much more concerned about what they are doing to the water and air. Pumping trillions of tons of gas into the air that will kill you if in a confined space can not be good for any of us.

Originally posted by HumansBeing
reply to post by Carseller4

 

Before we get way off topic, please just answer this...
This human made, unnatural AMOUNT of CO2 remains in our atmosphere and leaks out at a much slower rate than it is being produced...can all the anti-global warmers on this post agree on that fact?

If you can agree that we are producing an abnormal amount of a specific gas that is ment to trap heat then you can see where humans have a direct effect on the temperature of our current natural earth.

I think human beings are a natural occurrence on this planet and anything we do is considered natural, just as natural as ants building an ant hill, or a beaver building a dam. No one would ever blame ants or beavers for global warming so why should humans get blamed. We are part of nature after all.

Originally posted by Carseller4

Originally posted by HumansBeing
reply to post by Carseller4

 

Before we get way off topic, please just answer this...
This human made, unnatural AMOUNT of CO2 remains in our atmosphere and leaks out at a much slower rate than it is being produced...can all the anti-global warmers on this post agree on that fact?

If you can agree that we are producing an abnormal amount of a specific gas that is ment to trap heat then you can see where humans have a direct effect on the temperature of our current natural earth.

I think human beings are a natural occurrence on this planet and anything we do is considered natural, just as natural as ants building an ant hill, or a beaver building a dam. No one would ever blame ants or beavers for global warming so why should humans get blamed. We are part of nature after all.

By that logic, Uranium is natural, humans are natural, therefore global thermonuclear war is totally natural...therefore, why bother even considering its impact..

cancer is normal..why do we try to fight it...after all, it typically comes from eating or smoking natural stuff also...

everything is natural...

and yes, us screwing up the entire planet is also natural...like a virus screwing up a body. We however are hopefully better than a virus that will kill its host by its destructive practices, as we have foresight on the damage we do...at least some of us do anyhow.

Originally posted by sligtlyskeptical

The scientific data does not prove that fossil fuels are raising the temperature. Correlations do exist but there is also a great possibility of coincindence. The fact is that climate change can not be proved or disproved.

how totally opposite.
Its proven..there is a mountain of peer reviewed studies, tests, etc that directly confirms this.
What your thinking is "accepted'..that is different...you can prove it all day long. if someone doesn't accept proof, then its not accepted.

The argument against fossil fuels is completely off track anyways. I am much more concerned about what they are doing to the water and air. Pumping trillions of tons of gas into the air that will kill you if in a confined space can not be good for any of us.

I don't understand that bit.
You don't believe that fossil fuel burning is bad for the environment, but you accept its going to cause all sorts of issues with humans.
Either way, your making an argument in line with cap/trade and getting off fossil fuels anyhow..

Thanks for hijacking my thread, y'all! J/K

This type of intellectually stimulated debate is exactly what we need to teach our students. If no one objects, I'd like to copy and paste some of the replies to share as examples of debate. If you would prefer I leave you out just let me know.

Originally posted by Carseller4
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.
It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.
In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

The global warming religion has no place in our schools. Separation of church and state...remember?

Explain to me what the hell separation of church & state has to do with schools?!?

Separation of church and state basically means that no government can mandate you follow a prescribed religion. For example if Mitt Romney was to win he couldn't pass an executive order forcing everyone to be Mormon.......

How that applies to school's or this story is beyond me. People keep trying to warp the Constitution to their own agenda and it won't work here.

Maybe if more people actually read and UNDERSTOOD the Constitution we would have less people trampling on it.

Unfortunately, the public school system has become the primary means by which opposing parties push their agenda. Tyrannical governments have always found that the best way to accomplish long-term change is through the curriculum of the school systems. The old Soviet Union did it, the Communist Chinese use it, Hitler used it, and now the unions, communist-leaning groups, and special interest groups use it in the US to push their agenda. The pressure of grades and the accompanying future careers of students become prime grounds for such actions. In addition, as "authority figures" teachers hold an unfair advantage over parents, especially those that are engaged in trying to support their families, and may be unaware of what Johnny or Susie is "learning" as "fact".
Good teachers and professors allow their students to "think", rather than memorize. It is truly ironic that tests such as T/F and multiple choice tests push a philosophy in many cases, rather than advance the thinking process. I've talked about this issue in detail on threads several years ago, so I won't repeat it here, but suffice it to say that the educational system today is truly one that has more propaganda than learning in the curriculum.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus


Well stated.

Are you aware of the current push towards a national curriculum? Currently the curriculum is determined by the state. Thus what students learn in second grade in one state may not be the same in other states.

NC is changing the curriculum to a Common Core. I've spent the past year working with these new standards, which takes effect in the fall. The most noticeable change is a move away from the current "knowledge based" curriculum to curriculum that requires more critical thinking.

I feel optimistic that the new guidelines will help improve our schools.

Originally posted by mwood

Originally posted by Carseller4
www.dailymail.co.uk...

Current theories of the causes and impact of global warming have been thrown into question by a new study which shows that during medieval times the whole of the planet heated up.
It then cooled down naturally and there was even a 'mini ice age'.
A team of scientists led by geochemist Zunli Lu from Syracuse University in New York state, has found that contrary to the ‘consensus’, the ‘Medieval Warm Period’ approximately 500 to 1,000 years ago wasn’t just confined to Europe.
In fact, it extended all the way down to Antarctica – which means that the Earth has already experience global warming without the aid of human CO2 emissions.

The global warming religion has no place in our schools. Separation of church and state...remember?

Explain to me what the hell separation of church & state has to do with schools?!?

Separation of church and state basically means that no government can mandate you follow a prescribed religion. For example if Mitt Romney was to win he couldn't pass an executive order forcing everyone to be Mormon.......

How that applies to school's or this story is beyond me. People keep trying to warp the Constitution to their own agenda and it won't work here.

Maybe if more people actually read and UNDERSTOOD the Constitution we would have less people trampling on it.

Global Warming is a religion and has no place in public schools.

There is no issue here, so long as both sides of the theory are covered in a balanced way. That way the students can, as they should, make their own determinations as to the validity, or lack of same, of the theories.

Isn't that what education is supposed to be? Learning to think?

reply to post by Carseller4


Oh, but it does. No matter how we may feel on the subject, it is a theory that needs to be acknowledged. By getting it out there, it will stand or die by its merits.

Attempting to bury it accomplishes exactly nothing, save give agenda driven folks, from either side, more fodder.

Are you aware of the current push towards a national curriculum? Currently the curriculum is determined by the state. Thus what students learn in second grade in one state may not be the same in other states.

reply to post by smyleegrl


Yes, I am aware of it. The problem, as I see it, is the same problem that the Supreme Court is debating today, regarding the Health Care bill, namely that it seems to be an overreach by the government, which violates the Constitution. I believe that any attempt to enact it, will lead to the same road taken by the current health care bill.

The 10th Amendment of the Constitution of the US clearly states:

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Nowhere in the Constitution does it delegate authority to the Federal government to enact such legislation.