Victory as WV School Board allows students to debate global warming

By |2015-04-09T16:09:51+00:00April 9th, 2015|News|224 Comments

The West Virginia Board of Education voted yesterday to put an end to months of controversy and open up teaching standards to permit students to consider both sides in the climate debate.

The Board voted 6-2 in favor of amending the standards to, as the Charleston Daily Mail reports, “allow students to use scientific models to form their own conclusions on the debated topic.”

“Supporters of the changes, including board members Wade Linger and Tom Campbell, argued that ‘science is never settled’ and that debate will lead students into a deeper understanding of the issue,” the paper added.

The vote represents a significant victory for student rights and for science.  The scientific method demands consideration of all data, without regard for the impact this may have on a cherished theory.  Open minds and free debate are essential to science and climate science is no exception.

When the Board voted in December to amend teaching standards to allow students to consider both sides in the climate debate, global warming pressure groups were apoplectic.

They ridiculed the Board and demanded it drop its revised standards and ban facts which question the man-made global warming narrative from the classroom.

CFACT Executive Director Craig Rucker, Marc Morano, who edits CFACT’s Climate Depot news and information service and a contingent of students from CFACT Collegians chapters at the University of West Virginia and Marshall University testified before the Board, which voted in January to temporarily pull back the amended standards and further consider the matter.

CFACT also asked readers to submit comments to the Board and large numbers did.  Sources close to the West Virginia Board report that CFACT readers submitted thoughtful and persuasive comments that made a  significant impact on the proceedings.

The original standards forced students to only consider “rises” in temperature.  The amended standards substitute “changes” and permits students to consider “natural forces” as well as human activity when they study the climate.

The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change would do the world a lot of good if it adopts similar standards.

Thanks to everyone who emailed their comment to the Board.  Your voices were heard.  Well done!


Here’s the comment CFACT sent in

Subject line:

Protect students’ rights to all the facts about the climate


The Board of Education should ensure that its science standards permit students to examine and learn from all the data and analysis about global warming.

Must students be made ignorant of scientific data which shows that over the last 18 years climate computer models have consistently projected a warmer world than scientific observations record? Global warming has not occurred as projected during the entire lifetime of today’s school children.

Should the actual recorded data of world temperature, sea levels, storms, droughts, floods and all the rest be banned from our classrooms? Is comparing this data to the pronouncements of highly funded global warming pressure groups heresy?

Claims of an overwhelming scientific global warming consensus have been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked.

The discussion is far from over. The true mind of science remains open to new data and alternative explanations. Whether and how much of the approximately 1/2 degree C of warming which occurred in the latter half of the 20th century is due to human industry has not been conclusively established. Neither have any of the incredibly expensive “solutions” proposed to address any global warming been shown to be meaningfully effective or worth their tremendous cost.

The Board owes every child an open-minded education free of indoctrination.


  1. WiSe GuY April 9, 2015 at 4:43 PM

    There is more money than fact in global warming.

    • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:06 PM

      In your version of it.

      • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 8:34 AM

        A five word response that is ambiguous.

  2. scott April 9, 2015 at 4:53 PM

    how low has this country sunk into the liberal abiss where we have to vote to hear both sides of something.makes me puke,our founding fathers would shoot everyone of these treasonous scumbags ruining our country.

    • stopspending4 April 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM

      That was my thought, scott. We really have to petition and push to allow individuals (students) to be presented all information? If the data showing drop in temperature or data that defuses the climate change theory is bad data, that should be easily shown. Put all the info out there and let the reader determine. I thought that was what universities were supposed to do – except if you are not preaching the liberal biases then you can not present other viewpoints.

      • scott April 9, 2015 at 5:08 PM

        id say it was time for a revolution

        • zlop April 10, 2015 at 5:34 AM

          “time for a revolution”?
          Rothschild, Gore and Blood Carbon Tax Extortion Racketeers, will control and benefit from the suggested revolution?

          • Squidly2112 April 10, 2015 at 8:29 AM

            Not bloody likely…

            • zlop April 10, 2015 at 10:10 AM

              Newer underestimate the Rothschilds ad their operates.
              “The Rothschilds & The Two World Wars – YouTube”
              “Abel Danger 9-11-2014 $92 Trillion Dollar Carbon
              Disclosure Project Gambling on Contrived Disaster”

              • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 11:56 AM

                I agree they are extremely wicked and powerful. Ultimately there is only one option.

                • zlop April 11, 2015 at 12:14 PM

                  Bankers do back down and regroup. Sported and financed by German bankers and some US financiers, Hitler jailed some Rothschilds. Similar to Putin punting the Rothschild Puppets.

          • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:46 PM

            Buying carbon credits from the low carbon economies raises their purchasing powers. They then use this plus overseas aid to buy manufactured goods and fuel, thus converting them from low Carbon into being Carbon producers. A counter productive tax that raises Global CO2 levels. Was this intended?

            • zlop April 18, 2015 at 4:14 PM

              ” A counter productive tax that raises Global CO2 levels. Was this intended?”

              Fraud to corrupt all human activity, is the game. CO2 levels have great effect on plat growth. While blindsiding, misdirecting from the coming Ice Age, the Evil Malthusian Oligarchs want to starve the plants that feed the Serfs.

        • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:50 PM

          Can’t we just give all climate deniers Florida? There, no revolution necessary, just a rapidly shrinking land area over the next century for those who think they know better than scientists and want politics to win the day over evidence.

          • Michael Petterson April 13, 2015 at 9:11 PM

            Maybe you could point out to me where anyone said that they “deny climate” in print,as that’s a nonsensical argument. No-one in there right mind denies climate,and there’s quite a number of very distinguished scientists that dispute the science,as it’s there right to do.

            • cshorey April 14, 2015 at 12:13 PM

              Here, it is short hand for those who want to do nothing about human induced climate change and justify it with denial of the consensus view of the majority of climate scientists. Let them have Florida. Just a playful idea in which people get their just desserts.

          • stopspending4 April 14, 2015 at 2:53 PM

            I am sure the “climate deniers” would gladly take Florida or any other state if they could be released from being part of California. Would be a great trade.

            • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:40 PM

              Who is denying Climate Change? No one that I’m aware of. Just the accrediting of man’s activities and our beloved Carbon. The most essential and useful chemical we have.

      • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:49 PM

        This is a tactic used by those who hold ideas contrary to the evidence. Since the evidence does not support the erroneous conclusion, one must demand “fair balance” and “present both sides”. Shall we also demand to hear both sides of earthquakes being caused by plate tectonics or a dragon under ground? There is a reason a good science class should ignore the idea that greenhouse gasses aren’t greenhouse gasses.

    • Peter Osborne April 9, 2015 at 5:04 PM

      At least we are loosening the grip of intolerance from the oh so “tolerant” left who we have permitted to grasp control of the school systems.

      • Tongbei April 13, 2015 at 12:56 PM

        Sorry – beg to differ. This report is no different from when it is announced that some school in backwater Tennessee decides to allow Creationism to be taught. I don’t care what anyone’s feelings on the subject of the content is, what this “victory” will do is to cement in the minds of those who are already deluded as to Global Warming (being fact) the idea of “Well, what did you expect? Another backwater state allowing debate on an un-debatable issue. Come on people – gotta be smarter than to allow this to be called a “victory.” It is not, it is obviously a new psy-op element. It’s probably called “operation hick-support.”

        • Peter Osborne April 13, 2015 at 3:27 PM

          Depends on how far back you push “creationism”, if you say 5-6,000 years, creationism is insane, if you push it back to the creation of the Universe, 10% known 9 the elements we are made of etc.) 20% dark matter and 70% unknown, 7 billion maybe more years , if it was somehow not created, how did it come into existence? Entropy theory says that it is impossible to get something from nothing. Steady state is not an answer and also not true. The Universe is, in fact expanding with no indication what ever it will someday collapse back.”Just because” is not an answer.

          • cshorey November 6, 2015 at 12:01 AM

            But “I don’t know, and neither do you” is the best answer for all of us.

            • Peter Osborne November 6, 2015 at 4:46 PM

              So you are saying that you do not know that you exist and don’t know if the unuiverse exists? Well, it does exist and since when you start with nothing you do not get something some force created the universe. So it is not unreasonable to say that the creator is God. Certainly anything capable of creating the known universe, much less the unknown, rates the title of God with me. What would you call it?

              • cshorey November 6, 2015 at 6:31 PM

                Peter, this thread was discussing the origins of the Universe, not its or my existence. Your first question in the above statement is therefore a straw man logical fallacy. You argued against something I never stated. You then do address the topic at hand and admit you don’t know by asserting there was nothing to begin with. You don’t know that, and it leads to the infinite regress of “who made God?” Lastly you put a word, a placeholder, for this concept of an active agent of creation, and give the perfect example of the “God of the gaps” logical fallacy. That would make one straw man fallacy, one unproven assumption, and a final God of the gaps fallacy. Sorry if I don’t find your argument convincing, and if you had made a rock solid argument for God’s existence you would have murdered Faith. So let’s go back to my statement, I don’t know (about the Universe’s origin), and neither do you.

    • Calvinius April 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM

      Let me guess, you think science classes should also include “both sides” of the “debate” between evolution and creationism?

      • oi812 April 9, 2015 at 9:16 PM

        as long as you have a creation model then why not

        • Calvinius April 9, 2015 at 11:33 PM

          Well, there is no scientific “creation model”. Just like there isn’t any workable scientific model for recent climate trends that contradicts man-made global warming. If you can come up with on, feel free to submit it to the scientific journal of your choice, and collect your Nobel Prize in Physics.

          • Florian75 April 10, 2015 at 12:20 AM

            What are you talking about? There aren’t any scientific models that accurately “model” what is actually being observed by meteorologists.

            • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:54 PM

              Yes there are. We use a variety of models in meteorology. The Bergen School of meteorology make the mesocylone model back in the 1920’s, and the first ENIAC computer modeled an actual mesocyclonic system.

              • Florian75 April 14, 2015 at 10:10 PM

                You are partially correct. Understanding frontal zones and movement of air masses will give you probabilities on what may happen in 3 to 5 days, but reliable models do not yet exist which definitively indicate the micro changes in Earth’s climate on the scale of decades, centuries, or millennia. Had such accurate models existed in the past 10 to 20 years, they would have a strong correlation with what has been observed (ie. the pause in warming). Environmental and Climate Alarmists have been preaching catastrophe for 40 to 50 years now, and yet we do not find ourselves in the dire circumstances they so adamantly prophesied.

                • cshorey April 14, 2015 at 10:47 PM

                  That is not correct. The last 20 years are well within the 95% confidence interval, and gets even tighter when you take the ocean heating data into account. In fact, there is no way to model the last 20 years of climate without taking the human greenhouse forcing into account. When you see model outputs, you are most likely seeing an ensemble of 30 or more runs. That erases the ups and downs of individual runs. Individual runs with the human effect properly taken into account do occasionally show slowing of the atmospheric warming, but they also show that we shouldn’t take that as a comfort. This is the first year in a while to be barely on the El Nino side of Pacific tuning, and that means that ocean basin won’t absorb as much heat this year as it has previously.

            • Peter Osborne November 6, 2015 at 5:00 PM

              Very true. It is not currently possible to devise a program that accurately reflects the effect of such a tiny amount of gas for a hugh number of reasons. Not the least of which is the fact that the Sun and its’ varried enercy cycles drives climate. Were just along for the ride.

          • Squidly2112 April 10, 2015 at 8:31 AM

            You’re obviously a dumbass … “…workable scientific model for recent climate trends that contradicts man-made global warming” … seriously … are you really this stupid?

            • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:56 PM

              I love how climate models have been predicting for decades that greenhouse forcing would result in a warming of the troposphere and cooling of the stratosphere. And guess what has been observed lately . . . yep . . . warming troposphere and cooling stratosphere. So the climate modeling cup is more than half full and this group thinks it’s a completely empty glass. Interesting. This is a big sociology experiment in cognitive dissonance that takes place when a person’s politics conflict with reality.

          • Dexter L. Wilson April 10, 2015 at 6:04 PM

            Your fun, NOAA and NASA have been creating facts out of thin air. The Head of NASA was mad at one of his scientists because he refused to succumb to his Global Warming Hypothesis, wanted him to apologize to the media. He did sort of, he said he didn’t know this was not a scientific study but a political agenda.
            Why did the UN publish that it was hotter in 2014 than ever in recorded temperature taking, when they had to correct there statement? The 1930’s were hotter than now. The coldest ever recorded temperature in Antarctica in the early 1900’s was surpassed last year. There was more ice at both poles last year than for 18 years.
            Here is the facts–they are wanting a Global Government controlled centrally. It is called Agenda 21. Do a search.
            Fact, Solar Activity was higher during the first 12 of the last 20 years. Since then Solar Activity has been very low and that activity correlates more readily to Earth’s temperature changes which these so called Climate Changer Scientists will not admit. The largest producers of green house gases are the oceans that cover 75% of the Earth’s surface. They produce 94% of all Green House Gases. As they heat up they release green house gases just like a bottle of coke. When they cool, they absorb the same. The only celestial body where there is a reverse green house gas effect is Titan where Carbon Dioxide makes it colder because of Opaque light from the sun. There are more scientists on the other side against these so called Climate Changer Scientists; they represent the other 90% of the Weather experts. But try to get a grant to present the other side, fat chance.
            As for Creation scientists, there are a few. Check out or You might want to read a book by an investigative reporter once atheist turned Christian called “A Case for a Creator”. Let me ask you a question? How long did it take Mt. St. Helens to create a mini-grand canyon 1/40th the size of the Grand Canyon? I will answer my own question, one week. The Grand Canyon took about a year because of the World Wide Flood of Noah. Where do you think the lake in Utah came from? As pressure built up, the water behind a great dam sent boulders rocks like bullets out of it and through it. You think that dinky river, over supposedly millions of years cut the Grand Canyon? I got some great swamp land that I would like to sell you. I was one of you. Until I asked God to show me the truth. There is a layer of sedimentary rock here in the US called the Austin Chalk. That layer of Sedimentary rock goes from the Rocky Mountains from the Americas across to the Cliffs of Dover all throughout Europe, Asia, Africa, India Russia, China and Australia. You know about all the continents being one continent The Pangaea, right? Do you really want to know when they actually started moving away from each other? There was a child by the name of Peleg, in the Bible. Read the reason they called his Name Peleg and you will have your answer. Remember Creation Evidence Museum and look it up . Maybe your eyes will be opened like mine were.

            • Calvinius April 10, 2015 at 8:01 PM

              Why did the UN publish that it was hotter in 2014 than ever in recorded
              temperature taking, when they had to correct there statement?

              No, they did not have to correct their statement.

              The 1930’s were hotter than now.

              Not even remotely close to the truth. The 1930s weren’t even particularly hot at all, except in the middle of the United States. Less than 1% of the planet.

              The coldest ever recorded temperature in Antarctica in the early 1900’s was surpassed last year.

              And the warmest ever recorded temperature in Antarctica was this year.

              There was more ice at both poles last year than for 18 years.

              Yet another flat-out lie on your part. There was more ice at the north pole last year than in the previous…3 years, not 18. And ice at the south pole continues to rapidly melt away.

              Fact, Solar Activity was higher during the first 12 of the last 20
              years. Since then Solar Activity has been very low and that activity
              correlates more readily to Earth’s temperature changes which these so
              called Climate Changer Scientists will not admit.

              Then why has there been no such correlation? Why has temperature continued to get warmer as the sun’s output declines?

              There are more scientists on the other side against these so called
              Climate Changer Scientists; they represent the other 90% of the Weather

              No, there simply are not. That’s pure fiction. Just like everything else you have to say.

              As for Creation scientists, there are a few.

              And they aren’t actual scientists. They reject real science in favor of mythology.

              • Dorian April 11, 2015 at 6:21 PM

                Get your facts straight.
                Antarctica has seen melting on its Western Shelf, where there has been discovered thermal undersea vents. For the entire rest of Antarctica, that is, over 70% of it, Antarctica has been reaching record low temperatures, record snows, record growth in ice extents. In fact, Antarctica has been growing sea extent and volume consistently for decades.

                Solar Activity has been diminishing now since the early ’50s, it is at a 60 year low right now.

                The record highest temperature was during the 1913, that was over 100 years ago, in Death Valley. And since when in the past 80 years has there been dust bowls like there were in the 1930’s? It was on average hotter and drier then, than it has been in the past 80 years.

                As for rainfall in California, you are NOT in a drought. Historically data wise, you are receiving the same mean rainfall as it has been for the better part of 150 years. The drought of the 1890’s was a REAL drought. All you are experiencing today is water shortages because there are too many people. YOU HAVE OVER REACHED WATER CARRYING CAPACITY.

                Cut your population to about 15 million and you will find that there will be no water shortage at all.

                Calvinius you’re a liar and an idiot; you must be a communist, there is no other explanation.

                • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 1:08 AM

                  Sea ice is irrelevant to Antarctica. It’s the decline in land ice that’s the issue. And news flash, when that land ice melts it by definition ends up in the sea. Adding a massive amount of cold water to Southern Ocean means more sea ice in the short term.

                  Solar activity corresponds very weakly to temperature on Earth, because the variations in solar output just aren’t that large.

                  You do understand that there’s a planet beyond the United States right? The Dust Bowl was a local problem. The 1930s were not particularly warm at all on a global basis.

                  • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 11:20 AM

                    You have made a statement that melting ice will mean more sea ice? Please explain how you came to this conclusion, I’m genuinely interested. As melt water runs off the ice its temperature is at the top end of its freezing hysteresis curve. It needs to be quite a bit colder to refreeze. As its running into the sea I assume the decreased salinity might have an effect on the salt water freezing point but the degree of dilution will be hard to predict and it strikes me as just being Mother Nature at work. The Ice core samples showed it had been warmer in the past and CO2 levels rose some 180 years after this warming commenced. Warming water and we will see a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere as its released. More plant life as a result, and enhanced oxygen levels.

                    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 12:31 PM

                      Yes, it’s been warmer in the past. As in, a million years in the past. At no point in human history has it been warmer, though.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:35 PM

                      Not from what I have read! Where is it proved that its warmer now than ever before please?

                • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:58 PM

                  Calvinius did have their facts straight. You are terribly off though. Regarding Antarctica, how do you feel Guy Calendar’s work speaks to that? I will be waiting to hear how you parse this one with great interest. It is a test of your abilities to converse in science.

      • Russell Cook April 9, 2015 at 10:40 PM

        Predictable misdirection on the part of commenter “Calvinius”, whose insinuation is that there is only ONE side to the SETTLED global warming debate. That particular talking point was invented as a political diversion in the early 1990s, intended to steer the public away from considering climate assessments from skeptic scientists. The only time when ‘creationism’ is worth mentioning in this issue is as a comparison to how global warming believers similarly make up facts out of thin air to support their preconceived ‘scientific’ conclusions. This equally applies to global warming believers’ notion that skeptic climate scientists are ‘paid industry shills, which is in reality no better than the kind of conspiracy theory stuff put out by 911Truthers and ChemTrail believers.

        • Calvinius April 9, 2015 at 11:42 PM

          There are no actual “climate assessments from skeptic scientists”. There are some people with PhDs who are willing to go on TV and scoff at global warming, but they don’t give any real alternate explanations.

          And the truth is that global warming “skeptics” are not skeptical at all, and are in the same category as “911Truthers and ChemTrail believers.” In fact, 9/11 Truthers and chemtrail conspiracy theorists are very likely to also be global warming deniers.

          • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 2:50 AM

            One can believe in coincidences instead? I prefer to wiegh observation and logic with the laws of science. Theories that need to bend logic don’t cut it for me.

            Now can you in your own words explain the mechanism please? Or do only hold an opinion?

          • Squidly2112 April 10, 2015 at 8:34 AM

            Now you are just lying…

            “…but they don’t give any real alternate explanations.”

            But alas my poor dumbass child. Not only do they give a plethora of more plausible explanations, they prove through empirical observation that (a) we have not experienced any “global warming” for at least 20 years, and (b) that CO2 cannot possibly be causing climate changes.

            You are a useful idiot … well, idiot for sure, useful probably not.

            • Calvinius April 10, 2015 at 7:41 PM

              There are literally no empirical observations suggesting that we are not experiencing global warming.

              • Craig King April 11, 2015 at 11:08 AM

                Then why are there so many papers in the peer reviewed journals that attempt to explain no global warming for 18+ years?

                You are ill informed at best.

                • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:25 PM

                  The claim of “no global warming for 18+ years” is a blatant lie.

                  • Craig King April 11, 2015 at 4:44 PM

                    Don’t tell me buddy, tell all of those peer reviewed scientists who are offering explanations for the “pause” or “hiatus” or “plateau” or whatever.

                    • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM

                      I don’t think Calvinius could tell you anything.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:31 PM

                      I don’t think so either, warmists are very short on an explanations, only holding an opinion.

                  • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:28 PM

                    No its not, relying on late, massaged data that is assuming accuracy to several decimal points is hardly conclusive.

                    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 6:08 PM

                      Massaged data? What a damned joke.

                • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:01 PM

                  You mean that explain that warming hasn’t stopped. You misread that peer reviewed papers I think.

              • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 12:01 PM

                Well I have been feeling the cold over the last few years rather than heating.

                • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:26 PM

                  Yeah, that pretty well sums up the utterly unscientific nature of denying global warming. You think that if it’s ever cold somewhere that means global warming must be fake.

                  • Brin Jenkins April 12, 2015 at 2:19 AM

                    Then explain the mechanism, the link of CO2 and increase in temperatures. How does it work, and how it happens? can you do this please and stop hedging.

                    If you are unable to tell us, it it because its your own lack of understanding? If that is so, you are accepting another’s viewpoint, your opinion only. I have explained my position on doubting man’s responsibility by increasing CO2 by a few parts per million, can you give your reasoning for taking the opposite view?

                    • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 4:51 PM

                      Is this supposed to be a joke? The “greenhouse effect” of CO2 has been understood since before your grandfather was born. It’s a basic physical property of CO2. The higher its concentration, the more heat it will trap. This was first demonstrated by physicist John Tyndall’s experiments in 1859.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 4:09 AM

                      Under glass we have a green house effect caused by ground heated by radiation, and convection currents circulating upwards raising the interior temperature. There was an American Physicist (I’m unable to find the link but remember the detail) who made two green houses one clad in Basalt Crystal to block Infra Red and the other in glass. He recorded that there was no difference in temperatures ruling out CO2 as the cause of the green house effect in green houses.

                      If this is what is supposed to be happening now due to high level CO2 acting as a glass replacement, why is it -40C at Aircraft cruising altitudes? Or colder on any mountain top?

                      I am unable accept the one way valve theory of radiation through CO2. It has not been explained how it works in detail. I understand how refraction and frequency changes is any medium energy radiates through. Can you explain this yourself, in your own words for discussion?

                    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 6:10 AM

                      If this is what is supposed to be happening now due to high level CO2 acting as a glass replacement, why is it -40C at Aircraft cruising altitudes? Or colder on any mountain top?

                      Are you seriously this stupid? It’s because the atmosphere is much thinner at higher altitudes.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 6:34 AM

                      Of course its colder, the heat is escaping because it is not a green house. Hot air rising warms the green house air by convection, this can’t work unless we enclose the space by glass, heat will be dissipated.

                      Now if you don’t agree, stop being abusive and explain the mechanism as you see it, in your own words exactly how our Globe is getting warmer. It would be good if you can overcome the reversal of cause and effect, are you able to explain this please?

                  • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:25 PM

                    It was observation!

                • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:02 PM


            • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:01 PM

              A) We actually have had warming over the last 20 years, again you are very mistaken. B) CO2 definitely resonates around 10 micrometer wavelength, so I don’t know how you magically dismiss that except that the names you are throwing around might be better reflected back upon yourself.

          • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 3:43 PM

            How many time does an occurrence happen, and you claim coincidence?

            Twice is a coincidence, three or more and someone is probably pulling strings.

        • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:59 PM

          You mean like Willie Soon?

      • scott April 9, 2015 at 11:07 PM

        how are you liberal scumbag idiots even capable of eating on your own.go hang yourself reject.

        • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:03 PM

          And now I just heard “OH YEAH” on a playground. What is up with the members of CFACT?

          • scott April 13, 2015 at 8:18 PM

            fuk off you simple piece of dumb gay sh-t.get your retarded head out of your boyfriends as- long enough to see reality as-hole.oh thats right you can only rely on spelling to make you feel smart,fuking idiot.

            • cshorey April 14, 2015 at 12:19 PM

              I am so copying this one as a perfect example of a CFACT proponent, displaying their ability to form a cogent argument (or spell or use grammar properly). I’ve been reading this one to folks and getting quite a few laughs at scott’s expense. Humans really are causing climate change, and profanity and homophobic rants don’t change that.

              • scott April 14, 2015 at 6:04 PM

                go take your meds you brain dead pos.

              • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 3:38 PM

                You still have not put up any argument to show it is. Just repeating it is not a proof. Perhaps you support the Brave New World hypothesis that 40,000 repetitions equal the truth?

                • cshorey April 22, 2015 at 12:50 PM

                  What is the It you are referring to? If you mean AGW, that debate takes place in the peer reviewed literature and that is why the great majority of climate scientists who are in the best position to judge say AGW is a scientific reality. All that is going on in this thread is scott is demonstrating to us how not to make an argument, and I’m copying his comments and posting them for a wider audience. His attitude is not isolate on these boards, and is yet another example of how bad CFACT is with science. I don’t really respect any college students associated with this group.

      • Tigermoose April 11, 2015 at 9:28 AM

        At the least, the problems of slime to man evolution should be discussed and critically evaluated. Students should be taught the difference between observable, testable science vs historical science that cannot be tested. Students should understand the philosophical and religious assumptions underlying the theory of evolution. As it is, evolution is dogma and shall not be questioned.

        • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:24 PM

          What problems? There are no “philosophical and religious assumptions underlying the theory of evolution.”

          • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 8:31 AM

            I think its more a belief than supporting proof. Do please explain what you do believe or understand, in your own words how Global warming occurs please. So far its just been bald unsupported statements and no explanation as to how, or why.

          • Tigermoose November 3, 2015 at 11:07 AM

            Go do some research on philosophical naturalism.

        • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:04 PM

          And to round off science denial . . .

          • Tigermoose October 27, 2015 at 12:36 PM

            Science requires that you validate a hypothesis through experimentation. Evolution cannot do this. Evolution is more of an exercise in historical interpretation. It looks at things from the past and attempts to interpret what happened based on those things. That is not a scientific method, but rather an historical method.

            • cshorey October 27, 2015 at 12:50 PM

              And if you think that’s what science requires, then you will never know how those ripples in the pond came to be. What you meant to say is that both deductive AND inductive reasoning prove evolution. The fact you think there is only inductive evidence is your argument from ignorance. And this is why you’re not valued in discussions on the topic.

              • Tigermoose October 30, 2015 at 10:18 AM

                You can recreate the ripple effect of a pond and thus validate your hypothesis. Other things…like the past before historical records exist, cannot be verified scientifically. You can dig up things and make interpretations and stories that seem to fit what you have found, but let’s be honest and admit this is not the scientific method but rather historical interpretation.

                You can’t stand the thought that some things are unverifiable by the scientific method — so you invent just so stories that you find to be the “best explanation” given your worldview. This is why you are a fool in discussion on this topic.

                • cshorey October 30, 2015 at 1:37 PM

                  You can recreate evolution in a lab such as Richard Lenski did with e-coli bacteria. And then we can make testable predictions based on evolution, such as the 48 to 46 chromosome transition from other apes to humans. A creator could do that any old way, but evolution by natural selection can only do it by combining two chromosomes with telltale markers. And then we went and looked and found one human chromosome corresponds to two chromosomes in all other apes in just the way natural evolution would demand. And the fact you don’t know how science works makes you the one that needs to pull the log from your own eye first.

                  • Tigermoose November 2, 2015 at 10:35 AM

                    Lenski’s e-coli did not show new information being formed, but rather shutting down a normal process and letting a secondary process take over.

                    The 48 to 46 chromosome “transition” fusion hypothesis has been shown by counter arguments to be problematic and false. You see what you want to see, even if new analysis does not back up your claim.

                    These examples are typical. Evolutionist believers find something and proclaim it in National Geographic and the news, and then 5 years later or so real scientists realize their original pro-Evolution hypothesis is false but that fact is not proclaimed and thus not heard by the general public and believers such as yourself.

                    • cshorey November 2, 2015 at 1:08 PM

                      Those are not true. The ability to digest citrate is definitely a gain, and as for showing the information increase, that is what Lenski is currently working on and will probably find. And besides, evolution sometimes removes information as well. You are totally unconvincing with the chromosome bit, but it is a good example of the testability of evolution. So we live in a world where the experts in biology almost unanimously agree evolution to be true, and yet someone with, what are your scientific credentials, says you know better. Sorry, can’t respect your views especially as your arguments are weak, logically unsound, and unfounded. I give you evidence you spit back words of doubt with no substance. Go back to school.

                    • Tigermoose November 2, 2015 at 3:30 PM

                      Creatures can adapt to their environment through the turning off of traits (like blind fish in a cave). We have never observed a creature gaining information, despite your assurances that …someday…we will have proof. Without observable proof your words have no substance. You seem to think science should be about popular consensus rather than demonstrable proof of evidence. Methinks it is you who needs to go back to school — better yet, school is probably where you were indoctrinated to accept the authority of the ancients..err….I mean the “consensus” of “scientists” whom you say know better than our lying eyes. Guess what: if you do not agree with the dogma of Evolutionism, you are not allowed to graduate from biology programs or to publish. It is a form of artificial selection that filters out dissent. Go watch Ben Stein’s Expelled for examples of this. So much for science!

                    • cshorey November 2, 2015 at 3:37 PM

                      Very good. You recognize that information can be removed as well as in the cave fish. And then you mess it up terribly with your misunderstanding of science:

                    • Tigermoose November 3, 2015 at 11:06 AM

                      Making a claim does not make it so. You don’t really understand the creation science position. Creation science agrees that natural selection occurs within the given information set found in a creature. The disagreement is amoeba-to-man evolutionists hypothesize that mutations can increase the information set within an organism through mutation that leads to a new kind of organism. This has not been observed, despite this article’s claims and attempts to redefine what new information is. We do see different “species” that are a result of adaptation (finch beaks, for example), but these different species of finch are still the same kind …. a finch.

                    • cshorey November 3, 2015 at 5:43 PM

                      I actually understand the creation “science” “position” better than you would think. I subscribe to the ICR’s monthly magazine “Acts and Facts”, and get their daily e-mails. I know all too well how you guys move the goal post, set up improbably absurd initial conditions, and perform logic pretzels of logical fallacies with regular basis. Look at our conversation for an example. You started making a absurd initial statement that only deductive science is valid and inductive science is worth utter crap. That idea is utter crap.
                      I then pointed to ripples in a pond as a way that inductive science can work, and you used the logical fallacy of “moving the goalpost” to say we need to be there to know the ripples came from an impact with the water’s surface. That’s crap.
                      So you reply by repeating the fallacious argument that if it can’t be recreated in a lab during human life times, that a process that works beyond generational time scales can’t be true. That’s crap.
                      I give you evolution in a lab and you argue for no new information, which is a lie creationists like to tell to each other in their echo chamber, as if the ability to digest citrate wouldn’t be considered new information in the organisms metabolism. That’s just denying facts. It’s more of your crap.
                      You then admit that creatures can evolve by removing information, but when given an article pointing to examples of added information, you simply dismiss it with a wave of your hand, assuming I will, how did you say it, take your claim to be so. I don’t. Your arguments are full of bad assumptions and logical fallacies as all creationists are. I know you all too well, probably better than you know yourself with your rose colored glasses.

                    • Tigermoose November 4, 2015 at 5:27 PM

                      I tire of responding to your crap filled bloviation. You don’t seem to understand the basic concept of genetic information and the scientific method. You are backing a losing horse. At some point you just need to give up the race. Now that the internet is allowing the people access to the truth and the facts, it is obvious that Darwinism is Dead. Many are freeing themselves from the indoctrination of Darwinism. Darwinism is Dead. It is a lie.

                    • cshorey November 5, 2015 at 8:56 AM

                      I don’t tire; I have facts and the real world to buoy me up. I also have no delusions that facts and evidence could change the mind of a staunch creationist such as yourself. In this last post you grabbed for the straw man fallacy, redefining parameters such as “information” (and you bought that redefinition hook, line, and sinker and sunk). You limit science to what fits your world view and throw out the science that shows your creationist ideas to be bankrupt and childish. “Darwinism” shows just how deep in the echo chamber you are. You were given a run down of your errors in my previous post and you were not able to reply with anything. I’m just here so anyone on the sidelines will read and see. I know from experience I win quite a few fence sitters once they see how bad the creationists like yourself argue. Bad assumptions and terrible logical fallacies abound in your posts. Have fun with your children’s tale of creation, I’ll stay in the real and evolving world.
                      P.S. – the internet is not considered an infallible source of science. Guess you didn’t catch the memo.

                    • cshorey November 5, 2015 at 9:30 AM

                      But since you wanted me to go to the internet:
                      It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term “information” undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

                      increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
                      increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
                      novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
                      novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)
                      If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

                      A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
                      Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
                      RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
                      Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at on “gene duplication” gives more than 3000 references.

                      According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism’s genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

                      The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).
                      Adami et al., 2000. (see below)
                      Alves, M. J., M. M. Coelho and M. J. Collares-Pereira, 2001. Evolution in action through hybridisation and polyploidy in an Iberian freshwater fish: a genetic review. Genetica 111(1-3): 375-385.
                      Brown, C. J., K. M. Todd and R. F. Rosenzweig, 1998. Multiple duplications of yeast hexose transport genes in response to selection in a glucose-limited environment. Molecular Biology and Evolution 15(8): 931-942.
                      Hughes, A. L. and R. Friedman, 2003. Parallel evolution by gene duplication in the genomes of two unicellular fungi. Genome Research 13(5): 794-799.
                      Knox, J. R., P. C. Moews and J.-M. Frere, 1996. Molecular evolution of bacterial beta-lactam resistance. Chemistry and Biology 3: 937-947.
                      Lang, D. et al., 2000. Structural evidence for evolution of the beta/alpha barrel scaffold by gene duplication and fusion. Science 289: 1546-1550. See also Miles, E. W. and D. R. Davies, 2000. On the ancestry of barrels. Science 289: 1490.
                      Lenski, R. E., 1995. Evolution in experimental populations of bacteria. In: Population Genetics of Bacteria, Society for General Microbiology, Symposium 52, S. Baumberg et al., eds., Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 193-215.
                      Lenski, R. E., M. R. Rose, S. C. Simpson and S. C. Tadler, 1991. Long-term experimental evolution in Escherichia coli. I. Adaptation and divergence during 2,000 generations. American Naturalist 138: 1315-1341.
                      Lynch, M. and J. S. Conery, 2000. The evolutionary fate and consequences of duplicate genes. Science 290: 1151-1155. See also Pennisi, E., 2000. Twinned genes live life in the fast lane. Science 290: 1065-1066.
                      Ohta, T., 2003. Evolution by gene duplication revisited: differentiation of regulatory elements versus proteins. Genetica 118(2-3): 209-216.
                      Park, I.-S., C.-H. Lin and C. T. Walsh, 1996. Gain of D-alanyl-D-lactate or D-lactyl-D-alanine synthetase activities in three active-site mutants of the Escherichia coli D-alanyl-D-alanine ligase B. Biochemistry 35: 10464-10471.
                      Prijambada, I. D., S. Negoro, T. Yomo and I. Urabe, 1995. Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution. Applied and Environmental Microbiology 61(5): 2020-2022.
                      Schneider, T. D., 2000. Evolution of biological information. Nucleic Acids Research 28(14): 2794-2799.
                      Zhang, J., Y.-P. Zhang and H. F. Rosenberg, 2002. Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey. Nature Genetics 30: 411-415. See also: Univ. of Michigan, 2002, How gene duplication helps in adapting to changing environments.

    • Dexter L. Wilson April 9, 2015 at 6:52 PM

      You think the above is bad, evolution is far from a foregone conclusion. There is more evidence for Creation than evolution and if you want any info I’ve got the scientists and the sources to refute evolution, but they don’t want even to consider the other. (“A Case for a Creator” by Lee Strobel is a good beginning. Even Richard Dawkins knowing it would take longer than 4.5 billion years for life to evolve on earth believes we were seeded by space aliens. (Ben Stein’s movie, can’t remember the name)

      • zlop April 10, 2015 at 5:35 AM

        “evolution is far from a foregone conclusion” — Universe has a tendency towards development — not Death by Entropy.

    • ez April 11, 2015 at 6:16 PM

      i was about to post the same thing, glad i read yours first. however, i would point out something that i learned long ago; limiting any conversation to 2 points of view is still limiting.

      • Brin Jenkins April 12, 2015 at 2:38 AM

        I agree on not limiting discussion. However if enough folk can be persuaded it’s far too complicated, and only those in the trade can understand, you can get a consensus of incorrect thinking. This puts it into the bogus religious field where only the high priests tell us what to believe. Scientists who differ lose jobs and grants, this suggests a bias will appear in any field where it happens.

        Medicine has its problem with some accepted drugs (Statins) being less efficacious than claimed.

      • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:05 PM

        And let’s discuss fairies and leprechauns and Cthulu as possible causal agents. Let’s be sure to teach our children that science is a free for all democracy and then watch Asia outcompete our dumbed down kids.

        • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 3:33 PM

          That is already happening since we now teach about science, rather than science.

          When I opened a Physics O level text book and it said in big friendly letters, “Windmills are Good”. I realised that opinion was taught to pass exams rather than the science.

    • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 3:47 PM

      It’s spelled “abyss” and when we discuss the evidence, we don’t discuss sides. When we discuss politics we do. The politics of climate change allows groups like CFACT to exist, but CFACT is notoriously bad at science. Now that the WV students will hear all the evidence, they will see that CFACT are a bunch of confused individuals with a definite agenda which is not to find the truth.

  3. Jon-Anders Grannes April 9, 2015 at 5:01 PM

    This contradicts the progressive enlightened Liberalism?

    • Brin Jenkins April 9, 2015 at 8:23 PM

      Enlightened Liberalism, now thats a wishful thought.

  4. Francisco Machado April 9, 2015 at 5:06 PM

    There’s something to be said for the AGW Sturmabteilung also by-and-large be opposed to personal gun ownership. They’re dangerous enough without them. They’ve every right to their opinion, but not to impose it – and the cost – on everyone else. If temperatures enter a falling trend as some climatologists predict, it will be interesting to see their polarity – which changed from coming ice age to global warming – flip back to coming ice age. Accompanied, of course, with the “human caused” tag on it.

    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:23 PM

      Adolph Hitler, and Stalin banned gun ownership, they had reason, and I suspect that the UN and Obama might share them.

  5. Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 5:10 PM

    Nice! I hope that astrology will now get equal time with astronomy.

    • Bob Armstrong April 9, 2015 at 5:53 PM

      My comment was just to teach the math and physics . That’s sufficient to kill this global statist stupidity against the very molecule which is the equal partner with H2O as the building block of life — including yours .

      • Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 6:05 PM

        Just to teach controversy of the math and physics … about climate change, right?

        I’m just asking that you be consistent. I’ve never seen a science classroom where students are given the options–astrology vs. astronomy, alchemy vs. chemistry, etc.–and then asked to choose. In every science class I’m familiar with, the scientific consensus (where it exists) is taught.

        • Bob Armstrong April 9, 2015 at 6:15 PM

          Even a talented highschool student can learn the math and classical physics , and even construct experiments , to show that James Hansen’s oft parroted claim that Venus is an example of a “runaway greenhouse” is a quantitative howler by an order of magnitude .

          When you can conclusively demonstrate that such a central figure promulgates such a trivially provable falsehood which the “climate science” community has yet to repudiate , you put a gaping wound in this whole 21st century BIG LIE .

          • Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 6:32 PM

            That doesn’t address my concern. I’m asking that you be consistent. If the rule is “teach the controversy,” that opens the door to lots of stuff. And should teachers accept any answer that begins, “Well, I believe that …”?

            • Bob Armstrong April 9, 2015 at 6:40 PM

              I said : teach the math and physics .
              These are courses established by centuries of experiment and analysis , and always testable . It doesn’t matter what you “believe” ; if you can’t comprehend and calculate the right answer , you fail . You will never build a bridge or design an IR thermometer .

            • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 3:24 AM

              Surely its the opposite viewpoint that enables progress. Consensus just stifles invention. Understanding beats belief in science whatever the consensus.

              • Bob Seidensticker April 10, 2015 at 9:33 AM

                That’s an interesting idea. I suppose you could find examples where innovation stifles innovation, but I’m guessing that after science clarifies a murky area (that is: reaches a consensus), innovation (I’m thinking engineering) can truly flower.

                But this is off topic. Differing viewpoints are welcome within science. Sometimes old theories can be improved upon. But we’re talking about science class, a very different thing.

                • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 12:43 PM

                  Yes there are a few examples. The reverse currents with a third electrode on silica were noted but all research was dropped as the valve developed. Electricity stopped work on Armstrong’s hydraulic accumulators as a power supply source. Steam power and the petrol motor.

                  • Bob Seidensticker April 11, 2015 at 1:44 PM

                    Is there any interest in discussing the topic at hand? I still maintain that science (that is, the consensus view) is what should be taught in science class. Only in the context of showing the history/development of a field does it make sense to discuss views that aren’t part of the consensus.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:20 PM

                      I had thought I showed that consensus opinion was limiting regarding other discoveries that came to the forefront many years later. We might have had the transistor and lcd display 50 years ago had the consensus not been that the thermionic valve was the superior technology?

                    • Bob Seidensticker April 18, 2015 at 6:31 PM

                      Is the consensus wrong sometimes? Yes, indeedy.

                      Now show me why we should teach anything but our best guess at the moment (AKA the scientific consensus) in science class.

          • DavidAppell April 18, 2015 at 6:42 PM

            Bob Armstrong’s own physics is terrible. I’ve looked at his “work” probably more than anyone on the planet — certainly more than the attendees of the Heartland Conference where he spoke, where his glaring errors didn’t raise a peep.

            I’ve found major errors in his work — of geometry, of radiative physics, of basic algebra — but he refuses to even consider them, let alone defend them. In some of his equations the units don’t even balance, which is the requirement they instill you on day 1 of science class.

            He is in no way qualified to judge anyone’s science.

            • Bob Armstrong April 18, 2015 at 7:48 PM

              There are only 2 steps in my computations .

              The first is the computation of energy density , and therefore the temperature of a gray-body in our orbit which you have agreed is directly proportional to the temperature of the Sun and inversely proportional to the square-root our distance from it . This number works out to be

              The second step is to calculate the temperature of a body given the power spectrum of the source , ie , the Sun , and the absorption=emission spectrum of the body . That is :
              The equilibrium temperature of a uniformly colored ball will be the temperature T such that

              dot[ sourceSpectrum ; objSpectrum ]
              = dot[ Planck[ T ] ; objSpectrum ]

              where objSpectrum is the absorptivity(=emissivity)
              spectrum of the object , and. dot[ ; ] is the dot or inner product : the sum across the products of the two curves .

              Both of these steps are easily computable and experimentally testable .

              You apparently disagree with the equation of dot products . You have yet to present your alternative .

              • DavidAppell April 18, 2015 at 7:58 PM

                Wrong. In some of your equations the units clearly do not balance.

                You misapply Kirchoff’s Law. You equate absorption and emission, when Kitchoff’s Law says is the *absorbitivity* and *emissivity* that are equal. Big difference. The former have units; the latter are just pure number.

                There’s more. Remember your solid angle?

                • Bob Armstrong April 18, 2015 at 8:50 PM

                  You have previously agreed with step 1 .
                  Please show us your correct equation for step 2 or we will continue to consider you FoS .

              • DavidAppell April 18, 2015 at 8:01 PM

                You claimed the solid angle from the Sun subtended by the Earth doesn’t depend on the Earth’s size!!

              • DavidAppell April 18, 2015 at 9:17 PM

                Bob Armstrong wrote:

                “The second step is to calculate the temperature of a body given the power spectrum of the source , ie , the Sun , and the absorption=emission spectrum of the body . ”

                Bzzzzzzzzzzzzt. Wrong.

                Kirchoff’s Law is about absorptivity and emissivity, NOT absorption and emission.

                How can you not understand this basic point, after all this time???

              • DavidAppell April 23, 2015 at 8:22 PM

                You are calculating absorption and emission, not absortivity and emissivity. The latter two are equal by Kirchoff’s Law; the former two are not. You misapplied Kirchoff’s Law.

                Example: the Earth’s atmosphere is much more transparent to incoming sunlight than it is to outgoing infrared radiation.

              • DavidAppell April 23, 2015 at 8:25 PM

                Besides, your dot product is ridiculous, because the spectra you’re assuming (page 26) is in no way realistic, and the intervals between wavelengths is far too large.

                Have you ever seen the absorption spectrum of CO2? It has about a half million lines (see the HITRAN database).

                Your model is ridiculously simple, and even then you still get it wrong.

              • DavidAppell April 23, 2015 at 8:27 PM

                “You apparently disagree with the equation of dot products . You have yet to present your alternative.”

                The alternative is to do real science:
                1) use a realistic spectra for the atmospheric GHGs
                2) do the integral. Obviously it can’t be done by hand, which is why people developed the HITRAN database and must do the integrals with a computer.

      • DavidAppell April 13, 2015 at 9:55 PM

        CO2 is certainly not a “partner” of water vapor. Don’t know where that came from.

        • Bob Armstrong April 13, 2015 at 10:54 PM

          nCO2 + nH2O = CnH2nOn + nO2

    • allencic April 9, 2015 at 7:18 PM

      Hey Bob, you’re an unscientific putz!

      • Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 7:32 PM

        Hey allen, give me something intelligent to respond to next time.

        • Russell Cook April 9, 2015 at 10:44 PM

          You’ll be giving that same advice to President Obama, with his quip about ‘deniers’ and the Flat Earth Society?

          • Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 11:05 PM

            My “advice” was facetious. I want science taught in the science classroom and “I think students are smart enough to figure it out for themselves” isn’t how science class works.

            • cc April 10, 2015 at 2:56 AM

              By that standard we should still be teaching that the world is flat or that the earth is indeed the center of the universe, those too were accepted as fact once upon a time. Isn’t it better to teach the students how to research and reason than to demand they adhere to any populist view?

              • Bob Seidensticker April 10, 2015 at 9:24 AM

                1. We do indeed teach students how to research and reason. Sounds like we agree that this is good.

                2. We also teach the scientific consensus. Schools don’t teach something else (your examples of the flat earth or geocentric solar system are good) and “let the students decide.”

    • CTConservatives47 April 9, 2015 at 8:28 PM

      Spare us your inane comments about astrology. There are thousands of real scientists not bought off by federal research grants who dispute the nonsense about manmade “climate change” to give lie to your inanities. You might start with Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station, and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Or try reading Lawrence Solomon’s “The Deniers” for a window into the world of honest science. Or the 31,000 scioentists with advanced degrees who signed the Oregon Petition.

      Or consider Green guru and geophysicist James Lovelock, one of the pioneering scientists of the 20th century, who officially turned his
      back on man-made global warming claims and the green movement’s focus on renewable energy. “Global warming” or “climate change”(the new term
      adopted because there has been no warming for 17 years) are the new religion, just as Lovelock says. Both the scientific community and the general public have awakened to the scam, the phenomenon of which speaks more to the human capacity for self-delusion than rational thought.

      Or the Norwegian Nobel Prize winner Ivar Glaever who has stated that global warming has become a new religion. He wrote: “We frequently hear about the number of scientists who support it, but the number is not important: only whether they are correct is important. We don’t really know what the actual effect on the global temperature is.”

      He also said: “The claim (how can you measure the average temperature of the whole earth for a whole year?) is that the temperature has changed from ~288.0 to ~288.8 degree Kelvin in about 150 years, which (if true) means to me is that the temperature has been amazingly stable, and both human health and happiness have definitely improved in this ‘warming’ period.”

      Glaever can see right through this false global warming religion.

      Global warming is a religion who time has come and gone. It has run out of fools to keep the scam going.

      Now back to your Tarot deck.

      • Bob Seidensticker April 9, 2015 at 11:04 PM

        Bob Armstrong dodged the issue, but I’m sure you are confident enough to tackle it head-on. I’ll repeat what I said to him:

        I’m just asking that you be consistent. I’ve never seen a science classroom where students are given the options–astrology vs. astronomy, alchemy vs. chemistry, etc.–and then asked to choose. In every science class I’m familiar with, the scientific consensus (where it exists) is taught.

        • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 3:15 AM

          Whenl I was taught the theory of the thermionic valve, the electron flow was reversed to explain the transistor. Surely this illustrated that theories are only a possible explanation and not always the truth. They can be useful but are not laws of physics, if they bend laws they are flawed, as is the CO2 warming theory.

          • Bob Seidensticker April 10, 2015 at 9:29 AM

            theories are only a possible explanation and not always the truth.

            Agreed. Science never claims to prove anything or to be certain.

            Nevertheless, in science class, no teacher ever says, “OK, this isn’t the scientific consensus, and indeed the scientific consensus says something quite different, but just in the interest of completeness, let’s talk about …”

  6. don lavrich April 9, 2015 at 6:05 PM

    its all about distribution of the wealth by the one world order. its time to dismantle this one world evil order for good.

  7. dan from ohio April 9, 2015 at 6:10 PM

    this is great,they should ask why Japan gets to build 43 new coal burning plants to replace their nuclear plant that blew up.They promise to reduce carbon 20% by 2030…while Obama keeps shutting our power sources down

    • Anne Perram April 9, 2015 at 10:33 PM

      Obama is running his own agenda with the Democrats support and mainstream media. That agenda is not good for this country.

  8. Roy S. Mallmann April 9, 2015 at 6:20 PM

    I just wish that this “global warming” could be taken to a court of law where these so-called scientists that are pushing global warming would have to testify to THE FACTS under the threat of perjury. There is so much actual scientific and non-scientific fact that disproves every single global warming claim. Every single prediction that they have made in the past45 years has proven to be false. EVERY SINGLE ONE! They have manipulated their climate model temperatures and even NASA and NOAA has bit on them and used them until they were caught and had to print a retraction. In my 70 years on this earth I have seen all of these charlatans claims go up in smoke. To call Carbon Dioxide a “poison” and have the EPA classify it as that points out why people cannot trust this government or the people running it. I have never seen so many ignorant people in one place as in this “Union of Confused Scientists”!

    • Calvinius April 9, 2015 at 6:24 PM

      There is so much actual scientific and non-scientific fact that disproves every single global warming claim.

      No, there simply is not.

      • ed28 April 9, 2015 at 10:09 PM

        There is so much actual scientific and non-scientific fact that disproves every single global warming claim.
        “No, there simply is not.”

        As an environmental scientist, a marine scientist, a botanist, and an ecologist I must agree with the former and laugh at the later.

        • Calvinius April 9, 2015 at 11:35 PM

          Really, you claim to be a scientist in four separate specialties? Unlikely, but possible. However, none of those specialties is the climatology.

          And the claims of evidence disproving global warming as simply nonsense. If such a vast amount of evidence actually exists, why is it never seen in scientific sources? Why is it only posted to Internet forums instead?

          • ed28 April 10, 2015 at 12:07 AM

            You are welcome to your opinion no matter how wrong your ignorance makes it.

            Regarding your opinion: You obviously have mistaken me for someone who gives a @hit about what you think, again proving your ignorance.

            Please move along troll.

            • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 3:03 AM

              I don’t think he is a troll, only one who like myself does not share your faith. Explain the theory of warming.

            • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 2:11 PM

              Hi Ed, I think we are on the same wavelength. The pro co2 warming protagonists rarely say what they do believe, only that they disagree with all dissension. I suppose that sums it up, they have bought into another’s opinions but are unable to explain how, why or when.

              • ed28 April 18, 2015 at 11:46 PM

                They are the sheeples who repeat the blathering of the likes of Al Gore. As with Al, to the sheeples, data is something to be ignored, let alone logic and common sense.

        • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 2:59 AM

          Good, we have one in the “trade” Please explain exactly the mechanism by which Carbon Dioxide retains a sufficient heat store to enable warming thus upsetting the balance.

          No links, just your understanding for debate. I understand refraction and why angles change, radiation, and energy.

          No links, your own understanding please.

          • wally12 April 10, 2015 at 12:39 PM

            So You claim that CO2 retains heat. That means to me that you believe CO2 acts as insulation. IF that is true, then consider that 400 ppm is equivalent to insulating your home to prevent escape of heat to the outside. That 400ppm is equivalent to insulating your attic with a small BB every 15 feet in all directions. Do really believe that infinitesimal size insulation would amount to any insulating value? I believe the climate scientists know that the ability of CO2 is very questionable in terms of being an affective green house gas. Therefore they needed something that would boost the affect by providing a multiplier. Therefore, along came the theory that CO2 had positive feed back to the real green house gas which everyone should agree is clouds and water vapor. The problem is that the positive feed back has not been proven to be the value as established by these scientists. They claim that the feed back is a factor of about 3. However, there is no temperature measurements that shows that feed back effect. Please do this simple calculation. Divide 400 by 1,000,000 and you will find that it is .0004. Now multiply 15 ft times 12 inches times .0004 and you get .072 inches or the size of your small BB. Therefore to think that CO2 is an affective insulator is totally a figment of someone’s imagination.

            • Will Haas April 11, 2015 at 1:32 AM

              If changes in CO2 did affect climate by changing the insulation properties of the atmosphere then such changes in CO2 should change the temperature lapse rate in the atmosphere but they do not. The 1976 Standard Atmosphere is still in use today even though CO2 levels have increased.
              In describing the radiant greenhouse effect I often see the statement that CO2 absorbs infrared radiation but then it re radiates it in all directions. If that is so then CO2 does not trap heat because it does not retain any of the infrared energy that it “absorbs”. Of course we should all know that a good absorber is also a good radiator. If any of the gasses in the atmosphere trap heat it would be the non greenhouse gases because they are such inefficient IR radiators.
              The AGW theory is that added CO2 increases the radiant thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere causing warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere but cooling in the upper atmosphere. The claim is that the warming causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which causes more warming because H2O is also a greenhouse gas. But besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a major coolant in the atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface to where clouds form via the heat of vaporization. So more H2O means more heat energy is moved which provides a negative feedback. Adding CO2 actually decreases the lapse rate which demonstrates H2O’s cooling effect. So without even considering clouds, another negative feedback, if CO2 causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere, the feedback effect is negative not positive. Negative feedback systems are inherently stable as has been the Earth’s climate for at least the past 500 million years, enough for life to evolve. We are here. The big problem with the AGW conjecture is that it excludes a lot of what actually happens in the atmosphere.

              • wally12 April 11, 2015 at 1:44 PM

                @ Will Haas: I agree. I am familiar with CO2 as being a receptor of only some frequencies of radiation from earth and that it re radiates it in all directions. I only responded to Brin Jenkins because I read his comment to mean he believed that CO2 was a thermal insulator. I have also read articles that the feed back was negative as apposed to positive by the climate models.

            • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 12:33 PM

              I did reply, but its come out as a reply to myself a little earlier. CO2 is a non starter in any sort of warming mechanism in my view.

          • ed28 April 10, 2015 at 1:13 PM

            No! We have nothing in trade.

          • Brin Jenkins April 10, 2015 at 1:22 PM

            No Wally, I asked for the explanation of the heat retention of CO2 that’s claimed in some quarters. I do not think its in any way an amount that matters one jot.

            The blocking of Sun light on a cloudy day illustrates the insulation effect of clouds, I doubt its heat retention of the clouds keeping the Earth warmer on cloudy nights so much as impeding radiation in reverse when its dark..

            I agree CO2 is a benign non problem.

            • wally12 April 11, 2015 at 1:35 PM

              @Brin Jenkins: Sorry. I misread your original statement and agree with you.

      • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 12:16 PM

        OK, its hard to prove a negative but surely the proof should be supplied by those presenting the CO2 theory. This is shown many times to be wrong in its climatic predictions, and wrong in its scientific logic. Many things might have an effect, if you are unable to measure this, its probably inconsequential like the orbital changes of the Moon and Earth when gear/mass was left behind on the Moons surface.

        • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:27 PM

          This is shown many times to be wrong in its climatic predictions, and wrong in its scientific logic.

          Merely declaring that to be the case doesn’t make it so.

          • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 3:23 PM

            I might have said exactly the same, but do we mean the same things? I rather doubt it.

            Please explain to us all what you do understand, and why you do so.

            Just saying you are wrong, shows us nothing at all.

  9. disqus_C6fGXmCFNc April 9, 2015 at 6:27 PM

    Finally a school board thinking about the children. Hooray for them and the children get the benefit o fthis for achange no more liberal garbage i hope gets pass these children. Good luck and thank you!!

    • Concerned April 9, 2015 at 7:59 PM

      Totally agree, and common sense has prevailed as it must at some point. Students must be taught to seek out all sides to an argument and then do some of their own research to arrive at good solutions. In science a single fact can disprove the hypothesis; however, it takes thousands of facts over a long time to allow it to become a scientific law. AGW is the hypothesis with virtually no factual proofs.

      • Brin Jenkins April 12, 2015 at 2:51 AM

        The reversing of a cause and its effect show the Carbon link to be flawed. This needs to be explained in detail, how can this be done? I know direction of the electron flow has been reversed to explain how transistors and valves work and theories should not flout logic. It remains a useful way to explain the mechanism, however in one device the flow direction must be incorrect.

        • zlop April 13, 2015 at 4:12 AM

          Common driver is likely to be the Sun.
          It warms. Is there a geological effect, releasing CO2?
          (seems like multivariate interactions)

        • Concerned April 13, 2015 at 10:58 PM

          Brin, the truth is that there is no link between Carbon and the earth’s temperature. The original hypothesis is that CO2 can trap more heat than other gasses in our atmosphere, but the heat capacity of CO2 is already saturated, so the only increase of trapped heat can be due to additional CO2. But since man’s contribution to the yearly CO2 increase is only 0.117%, it cannot be the primary cause of Global Warming (or cooling). Water vapor and clouds account for 95% of the greenhouse gasses, so it seems like these would be included in the AGW models (which they are not). Scientists have only recently (last 50 years) determined that our sun is really a “variable” star and not a fixed radiator and in addition, the sun has profound affects on the earth, the earth’s atmosphere, and the electromagnetic fields. The current solar polar field strengths are nearing an all-time low and track as a pre-cursor to additional cooling in the future. As a result of the multiple solar effects on earth and our atmosphere, the best models that I have seen to date show that the sun is responsible for greater than 90% of both global warming and global cooling including all of the ice-ages and 100,000 year long cycles. Why do we not hear about this in the news???

  10. CTConservatives47 April 9, 2015 at 8:03 PM

    Global warming/”climate change” is the greatest scientific fraud in history. That so much hot air, and billions of dollars in research grants have been expended over barely one-third of a degree temporary global temperature rise from 1978-1997, followed by no statistically significant warming for 18 yaers, is astounding. That Obama and most of the Democrat members of the Senate and House push this LIE is a testament to their gross scientific illiteracy. I would like to see one of them try to isolate the role of carbon dioxide in the our enormously complex climate system that is, in reality, driven by natural forces. Even if we were to grant a 20% role to CO2 that would amount to 0.07 degrees over 20 years, hardly more than a climate hiccup. These people are NUTS.

    • Brin Jenkins April 9, 2015 at 8:33 PM

      This is why complication after complication is thrown in. They hope to close down non believers this way. Ask them to explain the mechanism in detail, not what they choose to believe, but what they understand themselves. They damn well can’t because they don’t know. Link to those converted to the NU junk science is all opinion and belief.

      CO2 is released by heat, a cause is heat and the effect is more CO2. CO2 may not also be the cause of heat. They have reversed the cause with its effect.

    • Tigermoose April 11, 2015 at 9:36 AM

      I think that slime-to-man Evolution beats global warming as the greatest scientific fraud.

      • Lux in Tenebris April 23, 2015 at 11:44 PM

        Yes, but it all comes from the same source – atheism.

  11. CTConservatives47 April 9, 2015 at 8:08 PM

    Here’s my letter to the chair of the school board:

    Dear Ms. Harris:

    I write in support of the proposed amendments to the WV science curriculum
    to recognize the natural as well as the manmade contributions to climate.
    As one who has studied this issue for more than 20 years, I am well aware
    that climate is driven predominantly by natural factors–essentially the sun
    and the earth’s positional relationship to it–playing out over the millennia.
    These include solar output, the earth’s elliptical orbit, its axial tilt, precession wobble, as well as the effect of the Atlantic and Pacific Decadal Oscillations, and the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover.

    The predominance of natural factors has been clearly evident in the 20th century. Temperatures rose in the first half of the century before CO2 could have been a factor. And, inconveniently for global warming proponents, globally averaged
    temperatures fell from about 1945 to 1977 in the face of CO2 rise. And, more recently, in the period since 1997, temperatures have remained essentially statistically unchanged at about 14.5 degrees Celsius despite CO2 level rise. Indeed, it is ONLY in the period from roughly 1978-1997 that globally averaged temperatures AND CO2 rose in tandem. But this is overwhelmingly coincidental, not causative, as it will be from time to time. And since CO2 will continue to rise, we will
    experience periodic, and temporary, coincidental incidents when the two appear
    to be moving in tandem. But this does not prove causation, but any means.

    All of this discussion and controversy boils down a 0.74-degree increase (IPCC) in globally averaged temperatures since 1900 and, more specifically, to a one-third of a degree C rise from 1978-1997. However, most of this rise took place before 1945 and, therefore, cannot be attributed to increases in CO2. And the rise that has driven the politically driven controversy is hardly extraordinary in an interglacial period in which we have emerged from the Little Ice Age (i.e. the Maunder Minimum). Indeed, top Russian climate scientist Yuri Nagovitsyn is predicting a return of prolonged of global cooling as a result of decreased solar activity. And Dr Habibullo
    Abdussamatov, head of the Russian segment of the International Space Station,
    and head of Space Research of the Sun Sector at the Pulkovo Observatory of the
    Russian Academy of Sciences, has examined the 200-year solar cycles in coming
    to the same conclusion.

    What characterizes the climate debate in the current era is the intrusion of political consideration, agendas, etc. attempting to make hay of science for POLITICAL, not scientific ends. Global warming, or “climate change,” proponents are now tying themselves in knots trying to grapple, or dismiss, the fact that globally averaged temperatures have remained essentially flat for about 18 years.

    What I find particularly aggravating is the degree to which the “global warming” cause is advanced by arguments that have nothing to do with the actual
    evidence and attempt to demonize CO2—an essential plant food– as “carbon
    pollution.” Students should be taught to grapple with the actual evidence—i.e. the temperature record, rather than false political claims, or arguments purportedly based an “authority” (e.g. 97% of the world’s scientists agree, etc.). Indeed, the 97% claims are totally fallacious, and have been widely exposed as such, despite being endlessly repeated by politicians. There is sharp disagreement among climate scientists and only a small percentage believe that climate is predominantly driven by manmade causes. Scientists in training should be independent thinkers, not sheep repeating false claims.

    Politics has no place in the study of science and the science curriculum should be characterized by the scientific method and the examination of evidence. To do otherwise, is to cheat students of an education. I trust you will support these amendments to the curriculum to ensure that the subject reflects scientific rather than erroneous political considerations, and provide balance to the
    scientific discussion.

    Sincerely yours,

    • Ray Tort April 12, 2015 at 4:12 PM

      Very well done!

    • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:08 PM

      I love that an examination of the natural causes allow us to better understand the climate system and come to the conclusion that human activity is the principal cause of climate change now. This bill has not won the day for science deniers at all, but only allowed the proper science to be full covered. The conclusion remains the same . . . we are causing climate change and it will accelerate over the next century. Your letter seems to confuse multiple causal agents with a single causal agent.

      • Michael Petterson April 13, 2015 at 9:19 PM

        “Science deniers”? Are you attributing things to people that they never said in the first place,because no-one has ever said that they “deny science” In fact,making such nonsensical claims makes a strong case that you are not looking at the facts.

        • cshorey April 14, 2015 at 12:11 PM

          That would be short hand for “those who reject direct evidence and scientific process to jump to a politically biased opinion”. If you reject the consensus view of the expert community on a topic, then you are denying the scientific process, unless you have solid counter evidence. I don’t see that anyone in CFACT has sufficient evidence, let alone understanding, to respectably contradict the consensus view of climate experts.

          • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 7:10 AM

            Is manipulation of data OK for computer climate models? The algorithms used need to be vetted vary carefully, because that can change the results to whatever one chooses in advance. Is it not odd that so much bile is poured out on those who disagree, surely a proper and full explanation of how and why would be better. I have explained in my own words what I understand, are you unable to put up a convincing argument to to contrary?

            If I ask why does a ball roll down hill? I would expect a full explanation like the ball remains stationary whilst its center of gravity is central over its contact point. When we raise the plain to an angle, the CoG is moved forward of its contact point. This can be scaled and dimensioned to give the forward force moving it down the hill. From that many calculations reveal velocity to be expected and the energies dissipated as Potential Energy is converted to Kinetic Energy and heat as friction eventually eventually stops the ball when it reaches the level again.

            What I see from the Global Warming fraternity is abuse, name calling, and bluster covering a general lack of understanding. Prove your point in discussion please. Consensus is not proof of fact.

  12. Allen Barclay Allen April 9, 2015 at 8:14 PM

    Ha Thanks CFACT Craig Rucker for letting me participate !! God bless West Virginia Students !!

  13. Brin Jenkins April 9, 2015 at 8:36 PM

    We have a 960 year climate cycle, cherry picking a very short time to predict the future is crazy. Its like looking at the stock market and choosing what seems to be a rise over a specific short time, and gambling your future food cash. One needs to look at the much longer periods to not lose your shirt.

    • zlop April 10, 2015 at 11:56 AM

      “1400-1520 ? cold (Sporer minimum)
      1520-1640 107 warm
      1640-1700 61 cold (Maunder minimum)
      1700-1805 114 warm
      1805-1925 95 cold (Dalton minimum)
      1925-2010 138 warm
      2010-2110 ? cold?”

      All major cycles have peaked. After 2110, the millennial cycle will prevent another warming again, this interglacial?

      • Brin Jenkins April 11, 2015 at 12:07 PM

        Thanks, and I agree completely. Unless we look over 1000 years we might choose trends within the graphs to prove whatever we wish for, falling or rising just like the stock markets.

        • zlop April 11, 2015 at 12:19 PM

          Usually, only 16 years in duration, the 1,050 year cycle peak, split into the 1930 and 2000 year decades.

          There should have been a strong recovery. There is not, signaling that, the end of interglacial is near.

        • cshorey April 13, 2015 at 4:09 PM

          Like when we have 10000 year hockey stick graphs, and over 2000 years of northern sea ice showing an inverted hockey stick?

      • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:32 PM

        You understand that Greenland is only a fraction of a percent of the planet, do you not?

        And there is absolutely no indication that the next decade will have a cooling trend.

        • zlop April 11, 2015 at 5:45 PM

          Approximations are that the 62 year cycle peaked in 2002, the 200 year cycle is in decline since 2010 and the millennial cycle double peaked in the 1930 and 2000 decades.

          Going by, 2 broad peaks this interglacial, the 3rd up-tick has not happened.

          Additionally, greenhouse gases have little effects, perhaps, an unmeasured cooling. (chem-trails, a slight warming effect?)

          • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 12:57 AM

            There is no 62 year cycle.

            • zlop April 12, 2015 at 1:26 AM

              “There is no 62 year cycle.”?
              See “Images for 62 year planetary cycle” — “The cycle length is approximately 62 years, with maxima around 1879, 1942 and 2002, and minima around 1910 and 1972.”

  14. Dan Pangburn April 10, 2015 at 1:12 AM

    Proof has been hiding in plain sight that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change. Only existing data and the relation between physics and math are needed or used. The proof and identification of the two factors that do cause climate change are at .

  15. a fool April 10, 2015 at 1:32 AM

    Truth is always Right! Right is Might. Only the Untruthful who hides behind the Screen of Lies will always reject Truth ~ their desire is to control whatever is in front of them; not what is for the Best of all in Truth. Truth Rules without having to apply any form of Power Play; only falsehood needs that sort of support. Truth is its own Victor in the fullness of Time.

  16. zlop April 10, 2015 at 5:31 AM

    To gain insight into IPCC BullCH4, understand Potential Temperature, which is lower near the surface. Therefore, there is Net Cooling, near the surface. Simple high school reasoning, defeats the concept of CO2, net bottom warming.

  17. Snow White April 10, 2015 at 8:56 AM

    Wonderful! For students to take a stance on this issue shows a great sense of maturity. Looking at both sides, critically and not accepting what the “teacher” is saying that is education.

  18. Dorian April 10, 2015 at 12:13 PM

    Don’t count your chickens just yet.

    I’m taking bets that in 12 to 24 months that Global Warming will be the only agenda in the class room again. All you have seen is the Board giving in to the bad press. Wait and see, when nobody is looking, and everyone’s attention is somewhere else, it will be back to business as usual.

    What you need is the Formal Syllabus to be changed, and that has not been done. What you need is the Federal Government to enact a proper “Discussion Law” on all possible scientific theories, and that will NEVER be done.

    Ladies and Gentleman, you are being out manoeuvred. You got nothing other than some kind, good hearing words. You’re being suckered with the oldest trick in the book, yield something small now to appease you, then come back later to take it all back when you’re not looking. You should pay more attention to Oprah, she does this like a master!

    I fear in 12 months the word… SUCKER is going to make the rounds.

    You’ve been warned.

    • zlop April 11, 2015 at 12:22 PM

      Deep oceans are cooling. will not be long before the thermal momentum dissipates and surface cooling sets in.

      • Foreverendeavor April 11, 2015 at 12:49 PM

        Not to mention that solar activity is plummeting to historical record lows. In the past, this has meant things like the Little Ice Age.

      • Calvinius April 11, 2015 at 2:28 PM

        Just because you wish that would happen doesn’t mean it will.

        • zlop April 11, 2015 at 5:34 PM

          Why would anyone wish Ice Age Doom?

          • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 12:56 AM

            You mean the ice age that’ll happen in about 10,000 years?

            • zlop April 12, 2015 at 1:23 AM

              Mini Ice Age by 2030. How soon crop failures?

              “Food and Fuel Shortages Imminent as New Ice Age Dawns … Some northern countries will be abandoned as the ice marches down from the Arctic; energy production will be interrupted . .. “

              • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 2:06 AM

                Mini Ice Age by 2030.

                Not a shred of evidence to support that claim.

                • zlop April 12, 2015 at 3:24 AM

                  “During the past 17 years global temperatures have not been rising, temperatures have stabilized. There has been no warming since 1997. The power of solar irradiance has decreased consistently since 1990 and is still rapidly declining. Since 1990, the Sun has not been warming the Earth as in the past … The average temperature around the globe will fall by about one and a half degrees”

                  • Calvinius April 12, 2015 at 4:54 PM

                    Really, you’re citing the nutcase conspiracy kooks at WND?

                    The claim that global temperatures have not been rising during the past 17 years is a blatant lie. And solar irradiance corresponds very weakly with temperatures on Earth, because the actual fluctuations in solar output are so small.

                    • zlop April 12, 2015 at 8:14 PM

                      Solar activity is a Many-Splendored Thing.
                      For example, solar magnetic field deflects cosmic rays.

                      “temperatures have not been rising during the past 17 years is a blatant lie” ‘Global warming has been on pause for 19 years’: Study reveals”

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 1:58 PM

                      The solar output is all we need to be concerned about.

                    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 2:16 PM

                      Not even remotely true. The variability of solar output is rather low, and has only minor impact on temperatures on Earth.

                    • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 3:11 PM

                      Solar energy is everything. Unless it came from the Sun or our Solar system it never happened. Do you have an understanding of energy and its origins?

                    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 6:18 PM

                      Do you have any understanding of how little solar output actually varies? The fluctuation in solar activity are too small to cause significant changes on Earth.

            • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 1:57 PM

              You do see the long term cycles then?

              • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 2:15 PM

                None of the current warming lines up with those cycles.

  19. wally12 April 10, 2015 at 12:47 PM

    Great news. I hope that realization occurs in all schools across the nation. It is sad that even the EPA has become political and have bought into the CO2 unproven theory. The EPA in its initial years did some very good and scientific work with some meaningful solutions. However, as most informed people know this agency is under the influence of presidents and has become political rather than scientific. It doesn’t take an Einstein to see the effect that Obama has had on this agency of promoting that CO2 is a pollutant.

  20. MILES E DRAKE April 10, 2015 at 2:01 PM

    It is a sad state of affairs when a 6-2 vote to allow both sides of a question to be discussed represents a victory for freedom. We are oh so close to being a one-party Marxist police state, and we must be prepared to fight by any means necessary the current criminal regime and the successor that it will begin trying to impose on us on Sunday.

    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 6:13 AM

      The problem with demanding that “both sides” be discussed is that sometimes one side is pure fiction.

      Do you also think that “both sides” should be discussed regarding evolution, with the “other side” to discuss being creationism?

      • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 1:55 PM

        The trick is seeing the truth.

  21. Denis Ables April 10, 2015 at 4:18 PM

    Aha. Now that’s really serious. Unline Ukraine, Obama may invade West Virginia !

  22. Dorian April 11, 2015 at 6:41 PM

    Let me be the first to say:

    Actually, the Science is settled. There is absolutely NO evidence for Global Warming. I would like to propose that there should be another vote at the VA School Board, and that to kick out any discussion for false science, like global warming. ONLY verifiable science should be allowed in the school, not lies. Just real science based upon facts, not opinions. Children need to learn to read data objectively not create false theories.

    The West Virginia vote is not enough, as I have written in an earlier comment. We’ll be back here again in a year’s time, and next time, the morons/crooks/communists will win.

    Well California is now going to learn the hard way, through its over use of water due to over growing its resource, soon every others state will too. It wasn’t Global Warming that caused this water crisis in California, it was idiotic human made population growth. Is the West Virginia School Board going to teach that in its school? I bet you a million they wont.

    The vote means nothing, not when you need to have the communistic attitude of the teachers to change. Who is going to do? Nobody, the system is run by the Left (meaning communists), the school curriculums will stay the same.

    California is in water crisis, next Nevada and Arizona. Hey Colorado, you got any, I mean enough, water to spare? There’s about 50 million mouths that need water for 365 days of every year, for, forever!

    Why oh why, do I keep hearing, Oh Canada, Oh Canada….?

    • Calvinius April 18, 2015 at 6:11 AM

      Meanwhile back in the real world, there is absolute no evidence contradicting global warming.

      • Brin Jenkins April 18, 2015 at 1:53 PM

        Of course there is, remove your head from your horses arse and look around.

  23. Mervyn April 12, 2015 at 4:17 AM

    The West Virginia Board of Education voted yesterday to put an end to months of controversy and open up teaching standards to permit students to consider both sides in the climate debate.

    How the situation ever came about that only one side of the climate debate could only be considered, goes to show how low the Board of Education must have sunk, in the first place.

  24. zlop April 12, 2015 at 6:23 AM

    IPCC edicts versus facts;
    Net warming of the atmosphere, is not from the bottom.
    All gases warm the surface, greenhouse gases, a little less.

  25. Allen Barclay Allen April 16, 2015 at 4:21 PM

    Demanding their False UN Agenda Global warming, Climate Change Narrative Is made false from a Science itself , making their Narrative demands Identical to Catholic Church DOGMA of our Middle Ages that We Emigrants left Europe to get away from in the first place. No Orthodoxy of man owns Science !!! History is Full of the failures to attempt to do so.
    Science had to be set free from religious Orthodoxy for it to thrive. Our Bill of rights are the greatest document on earth so far making this possible, and fulfilling God’s Will for science for doing so. Captivity led Captive !! In the Greatest Proof on this planet Man’s old dream of going to the Moon. With our Bill of rights we went from Kitty Hawk to the Moon in one short Generation. Proof that these Bill of rights rain supreme on this planet for setting science free from the Orthodoxy of Religious DOGMA. Thus Science must be free or its not science at all.
    Wouldn’t you know Europe would try to Real us back in with their DOGMA that never wins the day with science !! Narrative demands of any orthodoxy about a theory are not science weather it be Dogma of Religion, Dogma of islam, Dogma of Evolution, Dogma of Creation Science too Its still DOGMA !!! Anything can be turned into DOGMA restricting the individual student from making their own decisions scientifically!!

  26. ROHBAR April 28, 2015 at 1:17 PM

    The pope is a scientist now, we have to bow to his lies like we do the enviro commies!
    Actually the earth has slowed down in rotation, this is from the government studies!

  27. cshorey November 5, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    The student’s debating against global warming will look as dumb as kids arguing against the germ theory of disease, or that cigarette smoking is linked to heightened risk for lung cancer. Just look at Tigermouse arguing against evolution. Why would we want an education system where we allow known fallacies to be broadcast in the classroom, and brand the science detractors as such? CFACT backs another terrible idea.

Comments are closed.