quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You don't think animals were around before humans?

That's nothing like what he's claiming. Since your level of ignorance on this topic is so profound that you can't find your ass with both hands please go bounce a ball and leave smart people to deal with science classes.

His claim was "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." When I called bullshit on that and pointed out that even animal farts can contribute to it, he claimed "Raising animals for human consumption is human activity." at which point I explained that animals were around before we started raising them for food. Now there are a lot of things that contribute to global weather change and man is one of those. But to claim that is the only factor is pure stupidity.

Then find a cause. Any one at all. But you best hurry up because the real scientists say we're rapidly approaching a tipping point.

Sure. right after you explain why there was change before man showed up.

How is that relevant? Many factors could cause climate change in the past but in the here and now we don't see any non human caused factors changing fast enough in the right way to cause the observed changes.

So now you are going to try to spin it from "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." to they are there but they are not changing fast enough. Why am I not surprised.

Are you that fucking clueless? I'm not changing anything. Learn to fucking read.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi
You don't think animals were around before humans?

That's nothing like what he's claiming. Since your level of ignorance on this topic is so profound that you can't find your ass with both hands please go bounce a ball and leave smart people to deal with science classes.

His claim was "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." When I called bullshit on that and pointed out that even animal farts can contribute to it, he claimed "Raising animals for human consumption is human activity." at which point I explained that animals were around before we started raising them for food. Now there are a lot of things that contribute to global weather change and man is one of those. But to claim that is the only factor is pure stupidity.

Then find a cause. Any one at all. But you best hurry up because the real scientists say we're rapidly approaching a tipping point.

Sure. right after you explain why there was change before man showed up.

How is that relevant? Many factors could cause climate change in the past but in the here and now we don't see any non human caused factors changing fast enough in the right way to cause the observed changes.

So now you are going to try to spin it from "The fact is there is overwhelming evidence the Earth is warming and no other cause exists but human activity." to they are there but they are not changing fast enough. Why am I not surprised.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

Union of Concerned Scientists? Why did you bring those nuts into this?

James J. McCarthy, Alexander Agassiz Professor of Biological Oceanography at Harvard University and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, currently chairs the UCS Board of Directors... The Union of Concerned Scientists was founded in 1969 by faculty and students of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology... One of the co-founders was physicist and Nobel laureate Dr. Henry Kendall... The group supports deep reductions in greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, as well as national and international action to combat climate change... The UCS has been criticized by conservative, libertarian and right-wing groups for being "left-wing" and "liberal". ~Wikipedia

Glad to see you working a little humor into your act.

K.

Hmmm. I think I mixed them up with another group. I was thinking of the Center for Science in the Public Interest which keeps coming out with those oddball warning about the health risks of this, that and the other thing. My bad.

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether

quote:

ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten

quote:

ORIGINAL: joether
When I think "Leading States in Education", I don't think 'Georgia and Oklahoma'. Georgia is 17 and Oklahoma is 40 for High School Rankings With schools in general, Georgia is 32 and Oklahoma is 36 If this guy was making a REAL argument, give the challenge to states that seem to have their acts together....like the Commonwealth of Massachusetts.

But both OK and GA have moved away from the common core standards given from the government and moved to their own level of standards for their individualized states.

In fact its been an annoyance this past year to revamp our product to each states individualized standards as more and more states realize common core has made them not very bright.

I'm not as informed on Common Core as I should be. But I do understand the value in hiring good teachers and support professionals that help improve the educational standards. That unfortunately, takes tax dollars to implement. Lots of tax dollars. Certain towns in my state of Massachusetts for example do very well with education. The observation is the commitment to not just say 'education is important' but to back it up with tax dollars. As a result, drop out rates are lower, those obtaining higher proficiency on exams compared to other towns/states, and better social and educational skills learned. As a result the commonwealth does very well on education standards. Is there room for improvement? Always!

The more important question that might be asked is: Whose standards do we use to determine if children in one age group, grade and/or location are on par with children from other locations. Not just in the state and country but at large. If either or both states were within the top five states; then it would be curious to know what those stares are doing. When they are in the 30-40 range of states, its telling me their educational direction still needs much more work and funding to make it stand out.

The answer is that there are such studies, they look at things like graduation rates, college graduation rates, SAT scores, AP tests taken, and so forth, as well as other standardized tests (state tests are generally suspect, because they measure against their own standards, and while some states assesment tests, like the NY traditional regents exams, were tough, other states were a lot more lax).

The conclusion of almost any study was that one of the biggest factors was the amount of money spent on education. If you look at the top school districts in this country, places like Chevy Chase, Maryland, Scarsdale, NY, Bernardsville, NJ, etc, what you see is very affluent towns with big tax bases, and it shows in the schools. If you look at the educations stats in the US by state, the lowest achieving states are states that spend the least per student, places like Arkansas and Mississippi have been at the bottom of the barrel for a long time, and their spending is also bottom of the barrel.And it is a no brainer that kids who come from well off backgrounds, where they are given a lot of education opportunities based on that, do better than kids from poorer backrounds (note, I am saying in general, not individual cases, kids from poor backgrounds can do well, Like Bill Clinton, while kids from well off families can end up as road kill).

That doesn't mean that money solves education problems alone, I used to live in Hoboken, NJ, that I think still has some of the highest property taxes in the state, which are about 80% school taxes, and it had some of the worst schools. The state and counties they are in dump tons of money on places like Newark and Passaic and so forth, they often end up with spending higher than anyone else in the state, and it doesn't help all that much; but put it this way, if they spent a lot less, as dismal as the schools are, they would end up a lot worse.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Another thing to note: in the article on PBSguy's site, they keep mentioning how the "bogus" science groups are funded by the Kochs and various energy groups such as Exxon, while failing to note the bankrollers behind their own groups such as U.C.S. (hint...it's not running on a shoestring).

So who do you think "bankrolls" the Union of Concerned Scientists? And what do you think that has to do with anything?

After looking into it the U.C.S. has no major supporter unlike the groups on the other side which are all supported by the fossil fuel industry. So what exactly were you claiming?

So glad you asked, Ken.

The Grantham Foundation is endowed by hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham. This fund owns millions of shiares in fossil fuel companis such as Exxon, amongst others. The total value is around 1.5 billion. It also has large holdings on tobacco giant Phillip Morris. The U.C.S. issued a 72 page report titled "A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U. S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy.". The main focus of the paper is to complain about how corporations have 'unjustly' influenced the climate debate. The first page talks about the need for "integrity" in science. The biggest unsderwriter for this report? The GRantham Foundation.

The report also rails against G.E. for supporting 4 anti-climate change groups , including the Reason Foundation. What fantastic amount did G. E. give the nefarious Reason Foundation? In 2008-09 combine. The amount was 325.00. How much did G. E. give to 6 DIFFERENT pro-climate Change groups at the same time? $ 497, 744.

Anything a bit wrong there?

You're obviously pulling that from some right wing blog so link to it so I can research it directly if you please since I'm sure you've mangled it.

Tis to laugh, Ken...like most of your stuff doesn't come from left-wing sources.

Funny how you couldn't find anything when all I had to do was Google "who is bankrolling the Union of Concerned Scientists". BTW...in case anyone is interested, you don't really have to be a scientist to join the Union...all you need is a check or credit card.

The information comes from the June 8th, 2012 article on nofrakkingconsensus.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


The Union of Concerned Scientists also said missile defense and specifically "Star Wars" was impossible. Yet Iron Dome works and there is continued progress in the field. I would call them The Union of Concerned Leftists, Some of Whom Happen To Be Scientists (TUCLSWHTBS).

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom


There's been no warming for 215 straight months. There are multitudinous explanations, but that's the deal. Based on current weather patterns, looks like 216 is next.

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrosaDom

quote:

ORIGINAL: njlauren

The answer is that there are such studies, they look at things like graduation rates, college graduation rates, SAT scores, AP tests taken, and so forth, as well as other standardized tests (state tests are generally suspect, because they measure against their own standards, and while some states assesment tests, like the NY traditional regents exams, were tough, other states were a lot more lax).

The conclusion of almost any study was that one of the biggest factors was the amount of money spent on education. If you look at the top school districts in this country, places like Chevy Chase, Maryland, Scarsdale, NY, Bernardsville, NJ, etc, what you see is very affluent towns with big tax bases, and it shows in the schools. If you look at the educations stats in the US by state, the lowest achieving states are states that spend the least per student, places like Arkansas and Mississippi have been at the bottom of the barrel for a long time, and their spending is also bottom of the barrel.And it is a no brainer that kids who come from well off backgrounds, where they are given a lot of education opportunities based on that, do better than kids from poorer backrounds (note, I am saying in general, not individual cases, kids from poor backgrounds can do well, Like Bill Clinton, while kids from well off families can end up as road kill).

That doesn't mean that money solves education problems alone, I used to live in Hoboken, NJ, that I think still has some of the highest property taxes in the state, which are about 80% school taxes, and it had some of the worst schools. The state and counties they are in dump tons of money on places like Newark and Passaic and so forth, they often end up with spending higher than anyone else in the state, and it doesn't help all that much; but put it this way, if they spent a lot less, as dismal as the schools are, they would end up a lot worse.

Well, right. Kids from Scarsdale, provided they don't OD on cocaine or something more expensive, are already exposed to enriched environments, travel, books, culture, etc. They may act like wannabe rappers, but when push comes to shove, they already have what it takes to succeed. Bernardsville -- don't know if you've ever been there -- possibly the most beautiful town in the country. Stunning. Idyllic without even a suggestion of bad taste. Estates as they used to be. So sure there's money, but it's hard to figure on cause and effect here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant
Another thing to note: in the article on PBSguy's site, they keep mentioning how the "bogus" science groups are funded by the Kochs and various energy groups such as Exxon, while failing to note the bankrollers behind their own groups such as U.C.S. (hint...it's not running on a shoestring).

So who do you think "bankrolls" the Union of Concerned Scientists? And what do you think that has to do with anything?

After looking into it the U.C.S. has no major supporter unlike the groups on the other side which are all supported by the fossil fuel industry. So what exactly were you claiming?

So glad you asked, Ken.

The Grantham Foundation is endowed by hedge fund manager Jeremy Grantham. This fund owns millions of shiares in fossil fuel companis such as Exxon, amongst others. The total value is around 1.5 billion. It also has large holdings on tobacco giant Phillip Morris. The U.C.S. issued a 72 page report titled "A Climate of Corporate Control: How Corporations Have Influenced the U. S. Dialogue on Climate Science and Policy.". The main focus of the paper is to complain about how corporations have 'unjustly' influenced the climate debate. The first page talks about the need for "integrity" in science. The biggest unsderwriter for this report? The GRantham Foundation.

The report also rails against G.E. for supporting 4 anti-climate change groups , including the Reason Foundation. What fantastic amount did G. E. give the nefarious Reason Foundation? In 2008-09 combine. The amount was 325.00. How much did G. E. give to 6 DIFFERENT pro-climate Change groups at the same time? $ 497, 744.

Anything a bit wrong there?

You're obviously pulling that from some right wing blog so link to it so I can research it directly if you please since I'm sure you've mangled it.

Tis to laugh, Ken...like most of your stuff doesn't come from left-wing sources.

Funny how you couldn't find anything when all I had to do was Google "who is bankrolling the Union of Concerned Scientists". BTW...in case anyone is interested, you don't really have to be a scientist to join the Union...all you need is a check or credit card.

The information comes from the June 8th, 2012 article on nofrakkingconsensus.

My stuff comes from me. I do my own research I don't simply regurgitate dumb shit I read on some shitty blog.

In this case this is simply a whine that has no basis. The funding in question is indirect and has no control while the fossil fuel industry funding of the deniers is direct and does exert control.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Really? All from you? So, you are one of THE climate scientists?

Indirect vs direct...makes no difference for the AGW group, even when it's 6 figures? Maybe not. Or it could just be hypocrisy...is the money comes from a foundation whose stated goal is at odds with their major source of funding, just go with that statement and declare the money indirect. Even when it's fundingis direct and comes from groups such as the Barbara Streisand Foundation, Ben and Jerrys Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Heinz Family Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (current president = some guy from PBS named Bill Moyers), etc.... but that sum in the hundreds to the group that has a more skeptical outlook on the "looming" crisis? Yeah, that has a DIRECT effect on their findings.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Really? All from you? So, you are one of THE climate scientists?

Indirect vs direct...makes no difference for the AGW group, even when it's 6 figures? Maybe not. Or it could just be hypocrisy...is the money comes from a foundation whose stated goal is at odds with their major source of funding, just go with that statement and declare the money indirect. Even when it's fundingis direct and comes from groups such as the Barbara Streisand Foundation, Ben and Jerrys Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Heinz Family Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (current president = some guy from PBS named Bill Moyers), etc.... but that sum in the hundreds to the group that has a more skeptical outlook on the "looming" crisis? Yeah, that has a DIRECT effect on their findings.

I do my own research. I know the subject. You simply repeated something you read somewhere without even understanding it.

The fact is that the blogger is whining because a foundation was one contributor to an organization and it is funded by a guy whose fortune includes a small amount of fossil fuel stock (total fortune $1.5 billion, fossil fuel holdings in the tens of millions.) This is supposed to compare to Exxon founding and directly controlling organizations whose sole function is to deny AGW to protect Exxon's profits how?

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Really? All from you? So, you are one of THE climate scientists?

Indirect vs direct...makes no difference for the AGW group, even when it's 6 figures? Maybe not. Or it could just be hypocrisy...is the money comes from a foundation whose stated goal is at odds with their major source of funding, just go with that statement and declare the money indirect. Even when it's fundingis direct and comes from groups such as the Barbara Streisand Foundation, Ben and Jerrys Foundation, The Heinz Endowments, the Heinz Family Foundation, the Schumann Center for Media and Democracy (current president = some guy from PBS named Bill Moyers), etc.... but that sum in the hundreds to the group that has a more skeptical outlook on the "looming" crisis? Yeah, that has a DIRECT effect on their findings.

I do my own research. I know the subject. You simply repeated something you read somewhere without even understanding it.

The fact is that the blogger is whining because a foundation was one contributor to an organization and it is funded by a guy whose fortune includes a small amount of fossil fuel stock (total fortune $1.5 billion, fossil fuel holdings in the tens of millions.) This is supposed to compare to Exxon founding and directly controlling organizations whose sole function is to deny AGW to protect Exxon's profits how?

So...like I said, you're a climate scientist? Because other than that, your material is coming from someone else's research.

quote:

As for understanding, you're the one who does not understand the hypocrisy of an organization that takes money from a foundation funded by your "sworn enemies". Nor do you understand that the U.C.S. have been funded by believers...same as the scientists on the right.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I'm saying, if they're sworn enemies of the fossil fuels, don't accept monies from those foundations built up mainly from fossil fuel money...and let's not forget Big Tobacco...and accept from only from the believers in their cause.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Oh...and by the way?

"You don't have to have a Oh.D to understand something". That's a relief...I thought my having only a doctoral degree was going to keep me from further discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

Oh...and by the way?

"You don't have to have a Oh.D to understand something". That's a relief...I thought my having only a doctoral degree was going to keep me from further discussion.

You know we all know you're full of shit right? You even messed up the quote.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

I'm saying, if they're sworn enemies of the fossil fuels, don't accept monies from those foundations built up mainly from fossil fuel money...and let's not forget Big Tobacco...and accept from only from the believers in their cause.

No. You argued both that it was wrong that it got money from a foundation funded by a guy who invested some of his fortune in fossil fuel and wrong to get money from environmentalists. So again where can environmental groups get money without offending your delicate sensibilities? You're being a hypocrite. You're leaving environmentalists with no where to turn to for funds.