After First Round of Corrections, New Texas Textbooks Still Deny Climate Change

There is a simple reason Texas school books do not include lessons on Climate Change.  That is, simply because Global Warming is a myth.  People cheating to try and prove it have been busted enough that any intelligent person would be beyond skeptical. 

Over and over, Global Warming advocates have been asked to prove that it exists using the Scientific Method.  Yet, with a large number of scientists trying to sell this idea, not one single incidence of such proof exists.

The scientific evidence shows the globe is in a cooling cycle; not warming.  

As one scientist unforgettably uttered, "If global warming actually existed, the Earth would still be on fire from the Industrial Revolution and the huge number of cows and woodland creatures who roamed freely and had more than enough food to repopulate on a regular basis."

Texas has made the right decision.  If the proof shows up, then I'm sure the state will change their approach.

Sorry if someone already dropped this one into this thread, but:

Where the hell is Global Warming when you really need it? Jeebus, it's cold out.

There is something wrong with the President.He announced an environmental agreement with China.There is no agreement.  It cannot be called an agreement.

The President merely went to China to tell the U.S. private sector he is unilaterally, and by Executive Action, ordering the U.S. economy to reduce its carbon emissions 25% by 2030.  It will cost Billions and thousands of jobs.

This did not require China's signature since it does not require or bind China to cut emissions in kind. 

Our President is acting extremely bizarre of late.  What was the purpose of this big treaty?  And, what is the purpose of granting rights to 4.5 million illegal aliens against the will of the people and right behind an election where amnesty is almost universally panned by the Electorate?  Who is for this?  Why?  That's 4.5 million jobs we don't have.

He must know it should draw an immediate impeachment proceeding.  The Executive Branch does not have the authority under our Constitution to grant amnesty to millions in the country illegally.  That is assigned to the Congress.  And the Senate must ratify the agreement with China.  He does not have that power.

There is something wrong with him.  Even China knows as soon as he's out, that agreement goes away.  He cannot bind the country unilaterally.  But the immigration damage will be done.

He doesn't possess the separation of power for these items. 

Koch Industries:  Have funded climate change deniers $67,042,064 since 1997.

Unlike evolution, human-caused climate change is not yet and open-and-shut case. The evidence is strong, but circumstantial (as is much evidence in science). The textbooks must reflect this, or they are dishonest.

This is a case where the 'pro-science' group is parading itself as "The Science". 

"....what scientists have known for decades: Humans are causing climate change," Josh Rosenau, policy director of the NCSE said."  And therin lies the rub.  NCSE wants only anthropogenic climate change taught.  Since the science is inconclusive, and the historical record absolutely slaps anthropogenic causes down (several climate changes before science tells us humans even existed), NCSE wants to forcefully indoctrinate the theory into reality.  That isn't science.  That is religious fanaticism.

I don't deny climate change or even human contribution to it.  We contribute to it by doing this thing called living, working, making the things we eat, clothe ourselves with, shelter, transportation, etc.  The only way to cease human contribution to climate change is to kill off all the humans.  I don't support that option.

The extent of human contribution is debateable, with one volcanic eruption contributing more than decades of human pollution.  There should be debate and discussion, and scientific investigation (different from politically or economically guided 'science').  We need answers, not slogans.

In my opinion, the focus of the climate change debate is more on economic dislocation rather than a living habitat.

In the geologic past there have been eras where the climate is vastly different than it is today.  In some instances the different climates are not all that long ago.

Let's go ahead and assume that sea level rises 10 feet.  Does humanity disappear? Or do we merely have to relocate hundreds of millions of people and various economic activities to higher ground?

If the earth becomes warmer, does the "breadbasket" in the American Plains disappear, or does it move northward into Canada?  Again, economic dislocation instead of human survivability.

Don't get me wrong, the climate could shift such that the planet does become uninhabitable for human life.  However, if this would occur, there would be threats to all life, just not human life.

@TheCredibleHulk DITTO!

@WhoisJohnGalt Actually, since the government is footing the bill for public education, it's kind of ridiculous to try to separate them from it.  Besides the purpose of the public school system is to provide a uniform standard of academics, so that all of our children reach adulthood with a chance at being competent in readin', writin', and 'ritmatic.  (I know the public schools are failing at this, but there are a lot of causes for that failure, and not all of them can be laid at the feet of bureaucrats.  Similar to Climate Change in that respect)

@holmantx There is more and more evidence almost daily that Obama is weakening America and its influence around the globe. But, he's also removing Americas ability to compete militarily, industrially, and intellectually with other countries. 

He also is totally disdainful of American exceptionalism.  Need proof?  His virtual dismantling of NASA, and the fact that we now have to pay the Russians millions of dollars to carry out astronauts into space. 

And, that's just one of many.

@casiepierce Climate change suggests Carbon Dioxide is a greenhouse gas, and is a major problem. 

What you breath in your exhaust that kills you is Carbon MONOXIDE, which is toxic.  Carbon DIOXIDE is not at all toxic. 

Hardly anyone has died from Carbon Dioxide, although some plants have died for a lack of it. 

Global Warming is a myth.  When the EPA had to get a liberal Democrat judge declare Carbon Dioxide to be poisonous, you know there was no science behind it - it was political. 

When British scientists had to fudge on the numbers to prove a lie, you knew Global Warming didn't exist.  And, when a group of climatologists using thermal recording to determine cooling or warming, and put all of the recording devices near large industrial plants instead of getting a fair sampling of ALL the local air, you knew it was to prove something false.

@casiepierce climate change is not simply pollution.  I think any reasonably educated person can look around and tell you the climate is changing.  that same person can look around and deduce that human caused pollution is bad for people, animals, plants and planet.  The two observations are not necessarily related (although it is likely that pollution is adding to the climate change.)

Has the climate changed before?  Yes it has.  Have these changes come before the industrial revolution?  Yes they have.  EVERY major climate shift in history occurred before the industrial revolution. Something caused those shifts, and that something wasn't SUV's and factories.

History is a bitch when she refuses to support your arguments, aint she?  Before you go around calling people stupid (which is what both sides of the climate debate tend to gravitate towards), how about applying some of that critical thinking to both  sides of the debate, and listen to both arguments with a critical ear.  I'm guessing you'll come to the same conclusion I have:  The climate IS changing, and we don't have a FUCKING clue what is exactly causing it or how to stop it, OR even if we should stop it.

@Subnx One debunker, no ,matter how much you liked him as a classroom prof, does not establish the case. The matter is still under scientific debate, though the emerging consensus so far is very much on the side of man-made change.To  argue anything else is dishonest.

@RTGolden1

I think those who advocate the Abolitionist Approach could be convinced Earth should reduce the current population of around 7 Billion to, say, 3.5 Billion.

We start with them.

@cartmantexas @TheCredibleHulk Your focus on yourself and being able to actually operate a computer obscures your sense of humor or that of others.


It was a joke.  Period.  Global Warming does not exist, and the number of scientists who have dropped off of their rolls and admit it is a fraud keeps growing.

Stop taking yourself so seriously.  Nobody else does.

@cartmantexas @TheCredibleHulk

I was going to tell you to go buy a sense of humor, but your post is far funnier than mine could ever be.

@RTGolden1 @WhoisJohnGalt 

Just remember that it is the taxpayer who provides the government funds.

@ColonelAngus @holmantx

Republican Establishment has probably cut a deal with him.  The neos are all for amnesty.  Only the conservatives object.  But one thing has been left out of the President's and the R leadership's calculation.

us

There ain't no faction Reb or Dem, white, black Jew or Gentile including a big chunk of the Hispanic vote that's for amnesty.

I think Washington D.C. is going to look like they got hit with a cattle prod if they go through with it.  

And it will be the Blacks are most vocal.  

And Perry, I bet, will deploy more guard and state police.  Maybe call for volunteers because Texas sees another humanitarian crisis being manufactured.  And an unnecessary one at that.

$5 says Congress will have to address impeachment because it is an impeachable offense.  Now, whether they follow through or not depends upon just how messy this wave gets.  Disease.  Just one Ebolian makes it through and watch them run from the President like he's got rabies.

@RTGolden1 If you want a good time - for a few minutes, ask a Global Warming advocate "so what" if the Earth is warming?".  They become apoplectic, and sometimes shake.  Nuy. most cannot actually advance a good argument - much less prove - that a warming Earth is any worse than a cooling Earth .....which it is doing now. 

The two most prominent theories on what killed the dinosaurs are 1) a huge volcanic eruption which spewed hundreds of thousands of tons of cloudy gas and particulate into the atmosphere, blocking out the Sun and leaving the dinosaurs without food and Vitamin D. 2) The other is that a large meteor struck Earth and launched tens of millions of tons of dirt and dust into the atmosphere, also blocked the Sun and rendering the air largely non-respirable.   But, it was not Global Warming caused by Man. 

Ice core samples for the last 30 years have proved there is no such thing as man-made circumstances that impacted Carbon Dioxide or the atmosphere or climates around the globe. 

Air pollution is localized, but could not cause Global Warming if it wanted to.  Just look at L.A. if you're not convinced.  With L.A.'s almost daily smog, the Earth should be on fire. 

@bmarvel @Subnx "...emerging consensus so far is very much on the side of man-made change.To  argue anything else is dishonest."

Change where the funding is directed and you'll change that consensus.  Science is no more immune to greed than any other category of humanity.

@bmarvel @Subnx Actually, one debunker is more than enough proof for real science.  That's how it works -- when you are wrong, you are wrong, whether one person proves it or a million.

For religion, though, a million debunkings aren't enough.

Which way does AGW fall again?

@holmantx

Ebola and the like is nature's way of restoring balance, but we keep messing with the natural order of things.

@casiepierce

By keeping the discussion at the Denier of Climate Change level, the President is now free to cut bizarre deals with China without the consent of the People.

If the debate moved from one of a straw man voodoo cult denial to what should we do about it in relation to what CAN we do about it more than what we are now doing, the participatory governance we set up would accommodate all views.  

As it is, the Left keeps arguing with this guy named Denial it appears so that they can act unilaterally because everyone is just too stupid to think like them.

But in fact, the only ones who constantly harp on Deniers are the ones who benefit from it - they don't have to argue on the merits.

And the President just cut a MAJOR obligation to China we're going to have to pay off on.  

And what the fuck does he know?  Why is that the correct course of action?  Is that how we self govern?  Through decree slung from the other side of the planet?

What happened to the Legislative Process and separation of powers?

He doesn't have the power to do what he is doing.

There's something wrong with the guy.

@casiepierce "Does that logic sound stupid? Because that's how you all sound."  You most definitely did call anyone who isn't a shiny-eyed adherent to climate fanaticism 'stupid'.

I'm not denying, anywhere in my posts on this thread or any other thread on this topic that humans might be contributing to climate change.  'Contributing to' does not equal ' Causing '.

As for your other arguments above, do you understand nuance at all?  Degrees of certainty?  It can definitely be established that humans have overhunted and caused extinction; clear cut forests, have caused local seismic activity with hydraulic fracking, and fucked with Mother Nature's water courses and caused flooding.  there is tangible evidence of these things.  There is also historical evidence that these things occur, and on even grander scales, when humans do not cause them.  What there isn't, is irrefutable evidence that human activity is the sole cause of the current climate shift.  And THAT is what the NCSE is demanding we put into science textbooks.

@RTGolden1 @bmarvel @Subnx The thing about science is that scientists are always gunning for one another. The way to build a rep in science is to cut down some other scientist's pet theory. The bigger the theory the bigger the rep you win, and you don't get much bigger than global warming.The way this is done ia to subject he the guy's theory to the withering test of data, actual fact. Out-research the other guy. I've seen it happen again and again.
If money, grants, etc., were the determining factor, the oil and gas and coal companies are not without resources. They could buy enougn scientists to fill a small country. As it is, it's a free-for-all, which is how we get the best science. Competition.
But I know in advance that you're not going to buy any of this, Golden, you're not going to wait and let the experts fight it out because no matter who wins your mind is made up. The game is rigged. You're not a scientist, but you "know" this.

just out of curiosity, where do you get your reputable, reliable scientific information? What journals do you read?  If everyone is bought off -- as you argue -- then how can you trust anyone, your side or the other side? You must have some independent source of information, something that doesn't come from any scientist. Maybe...politicians?

@holmantx @casiepierce

And the President just cut a MAJOR obligation to China we're going to have to pay off on.  

The United States intends to achieve an economy-wide target of reducing its emissions by 26%-28% below its 2005 level in 2025 and to make best efforts to reduce its emissions by 28%. China intends to achieve the peaking of CO2 emissions around 2030 and to make best efforts to peak early and intends to increase the share of non-fossil fuels in primary energy consumption to around 20% by 2030. 

that's the type of language that is used to not make a commitment. there's nothing here that obligates the US to a hard number.

diplomacy in action. it's actually a positive to have China commit to a goal as opposed to the US, we are already working towards a reduction.

@casiepierce By the way, just an odd theory: Pollution may not be the biggest contribution humans have made to climate change.  Deforestation and damming up waterways can definitely jack with the weather.  When we build a huge lake with tens of thousands of acre feet of water where one didn't exist naturally, it has an effect on precipitation in that locality.  Water and sunlight, very very simplistically speaking, drive our climate.  Jack around with either of those and it will have an effect on climate.  Will it cause irreversible climate change? I don't know, I'm not a scientist either.

@bmarvel @RTGolden1 @Subnx Marvel, your arrogance and disdain for anyone who questions you never ceases to amaze.  Your knack for pigeon-holing people based on one comment and one comment alone is rivaled only by Donkey.

Yes, Golden can and does read, and no, Golden rarely reads from politically aligned sources.  Am I pessimistic about the objectivity of 'scientists' on both sides of this issue?  Hell yes I am.  Have you seen the amounts of money being lobbed at studies on both sides?

You have never once got me right.

@RTGolden1 @bmarvel @Subnx Here's what I think Golden: You let your politics determine your thinking about everything. If that seems arrogant to you, very well, I'm arrogant. But that doesn't make me wrong.

I would describe as truly arrogant someone whose mind is made up -- closed -- before the debate on climate change has run its course.

@ColonelAngus @RTGolden1 @casiepierce Good point.  High urban densities create 'hot pockets', large concentrations of glass, concrete, steel and tar that A) require pollutant generators to produce, transport and construct and B) trap heat, thus altering local weather patterns, thus affecting the overall climate.

This isn't going to work out for the urbanites.

@bmarvel @RTGolden1 @Subnx Like I said Bill, You have never gotten me.

A quick read through my comments on this thread alone, would show that my mind isn't closed on this debate, also that I'm not trying to settle the science in my own head.  But, you prefer to make your snap judgements on the comment of one small decidedly off-hand comment.

I don't let politics decide anything for me.  How could you even know what my politics are?  Am I Republican? Democrat? Conservative, liberal?  What ARE my politics, Bill?  I can guarantee you, your snap judgement of what my politics are is 180 degrees out of true.  You said that your arrogance doesn't make you wrong, well, in the statement above, it does make you wrong.