Global warming on trial(longmontfyi)

[White_Male_Canada]

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

By Ben Ready
The Daily Times-Call

LONGMONT — Humans don’t cause global warming, a jury of sixth graders at Trail Ridge Middle School concluded Thursday after hearing opposing arguments from their peers.


“They’re pretty young for this kind of thinking. They did great,” paleontology teacher Ken Poppe said after the 40-minute “trial” in his classroom.


With Earth’s warming accepted as a tenet, pre-teen “lawyers” and “scientists” debated whether humans have caused it.


Eleven jurors listened intently as prosecutors and defendants flashed contradictory graphs tracking global temperatures, carbon dioxide levels, polar ice cap statistics, volcanic activity and sea surface temperatures — all of which were found Wednesday in the school’s computer lab.


“The earth has warmed and cooled over many years. If it’s caused by CO2, why haven’t the charts shot up?” Poppe’s son and lead prosecutor Caleb argued during a rebuttal.


In a climax that sent half the class to its feet and forced the judge to call for order, opponent Monique Nem slapped a contradictory graph onto the prosecution’s table.


“We’ve proven you wrong! The CO2 levels have shot up,” she said.


The jury responded more warmly, however, to Caleb Poppe’s response: The graphic cited a Hawaiian source; Hawaii has volcanoes; volcanoes emit CO2.


In closing arguments, Alexia Hegy said global temperatures actually decreased in the 1960’s, while the global population rose. Humans cannot be at fault, she concluded.


With the final word, defense attorney Sarah Steed countered: “It all comes back to us, the people — not the sun, not the weather. We need to turn off lights when we don’t need them. Bikes can work. The environment can be richer.”


Seven of 11 jurors decided humans are not to blame, but everyone agreed classroom debates make for fun learning.


“It was a hard decision, because both sides made good points,” said student Samantha Roberts.


Ken Poppe said he let students choose which side of the debate to argue. Poppe personally believes global warming is cyclical and not affected by humans, while his Colorado State University student aide David Richards believes the opposite. Both, however, said they presented both sides equally to the students leading up to Thursday’s debate.


“What I think is not the issue. It’s what the students dig up and how they present the case,” Poppe said.


Only one parent questioned Poppe’s decision to hold a global warming debate. That mother expected him to present Al Gore’s global warming movie “An Inconvenient Truth” as indisputable facts, Poppe said. After he explained his neutrality in the classroom, the mom allowed her child to participate in the debate, he said.


“You don’t understand someone’s position until you can argue it to their satisfaction,” Poppe said, quoting a famous physicist. “I don’t believe in Darwinism either, but I can argue it as well as any Darwinist.”

http://www.longmontfyi.com/Local-Story.asp?ID=15357

[muhmuh]

I don’t believe in Darwinism either

if that doesnt make him credibale in any scientific debate is dont know what could

[trish]

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

yeah, that's about right. WMC and his playground gang have decided the most current climate change is not driven by greenhouse emissions.

[LG]

WMC wrote:

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

Well Trish, we might as well give up now. The professor from Canada has categorically proven that Global Warming isn't man-made. I doubt he could have made his case more watertight. Imagine that- he's got a bunch of school kids arguing his case. What ever shall we do now?

We're finished. All those years of study are pointless. And all those other scientists will be out of a job. The sixth-graders have spoken and their word is gospel. Ah, but are they as reliable as Faux News?

So it's over. We might as well admit it...

Or perhaps not.



Message to Right_wing_Canada: Is that the best you got?

[White_Male_Canada]

WMC wrote:

Global warming on trial
Sixth-graders decide that humans aren’t to blame

Well Trish, we might as well give up now. The professor from Canada has categorically proven that Global Warming isn't man-made. I doubt he could have made his case more watertight. Imagine that- he's got a bunch of school kids arguing his case. What ever shall we do now?

We're finished. All those years of study are pointless. And all those other scientists will be out of a job. The sixth-graders have spoken and their word is gospel. Ah, but are they as reliable as Faux News?

So it's over. We might as well admit it...

Or perhaps not.

Is that the best you got?

"...several hundred well-dressed New Yorkers packed an auditorium at the Asia Society to watch a three-on-three panel debate the proposition: "Global warming is not a crisis."

The panelists included five scientists and physician-author Michael Crichton, the "Jurassic Park" novelist and "ER" creator, whose latest novel, "State of Fear," roundly ridicules global-warming jitters. By the time the opening statements were over, they were slashing at each other like "McLaughlin Group" panelists.

At one point, University of London bio-geographer Philip Stott and climate modeler Gavin Schmidt from NASA's Goddard Institute almost sounded ready to take things outside.

Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42. The undecideds dipped slightly, from 13 to 12.

[LG]

Right_wing_Canada wrote:

"...several hundred well-dressed New Yorkers packed an auditorium at the Asia Society to watch a three-on-three panel debate the proposition: "Global warming is not a crisis."

The panelists included five scientists and physician-author Michael Crichton, the "Jurassic Park" novelist and "ER" creator, whose latest novel, "State of Fear," roundly ridicules global-warming jitters. By the time the opening statements were over, they were slashing at each other like "McLaughlin Group" panelists.

At one point, University of London bio-geographer Philip Stott and climate modeler Gavin Schmidt from NASA's Goddard Institute almost sounded ready to take things outside.

Before the debate, not-a-crisis got 30 percent of the vote. After, the number rose to 46 percent. The is-a-crisis tally dropped from 57 to 42. The undecideds dipped slightly, from 13 to 12.[/i]

From the same article, here is something you failed to mention:

None of the panelists disputed the assertion that the world's climate is changing or that humans are partly responsible. Those things, all agreed, always have been true.

But what's your position? Apparently, you disagree or haven't formulated a position. You said that temperatures are going down. Then you said that they're going up but humans aren't to blame. Then you said that even if humans are to blame it won't make a big difference anyway. You can't even agree with yourself as I've made abundantly clear. And the reason? Guess what? You don't know what you're talking about!

Also, the agenda of the whole panel discussion is a little dubious to me:

The event, brought here from London by Robert Rosenkranz, was part of a series called Intelligence Squared, usually written IQ2 U.S. Besides being chairman and chief executive of the Delphi Group, an information-technology consulting firm, Rosenkranz is known as a big-dollar sugar daddy to the Manhattan Institute, the American Enterprise Institute and other right-leaning opinion-shapers.

But with IQ2 U.S., Rosenkranz says he isn't trying to promote any ideological agenda; he only wants to spur smart and vigorous debate.

I like the way you chose not to provide these little tidbits of information to suit your own agenda. It's clear to me that you probably suck at chess as much as you do at debating.

And, please note, one panel discussion featuring a best-selling novelist who writes about dinosaurs coming to life does not disprove more than a decade of work by respected scientists such as those at the C.R.U in the UK.

Like I said, is that the best you got? Because you're looking sillier with every post you make.

[White_Male_Canada]

From the same article, here is something you failed to mention:

None of the panelists disputed the assertion that the world's climate is changing or that humans are partly responsible. Those things, all agreed, always have been true.

Climate change? Naturally. The major cause, man-made? Nope. And the audience members agreed simply because the world-is-ending crowd do not have the facts.

Some of your other assertions of what you perceive I`ve stated are either wrong or completely out of context. You`ve picked up the VillageIdiots bad habits so I rarely bother.

Like I said, is that the best you got? Because you're looking sillier with every post you make.

Sure junior, not once, but twice you took the bait ! And after I detailed and explained to you how I lay out the chum for you chumps. Now that, is amusing

[LG]

WMC said:

Climate change? Naturally. The major cause, man-made? Nope. And the audience members agreed simply because the world-is-ending crowd do not have the facts.

The above sentence does not actually make much sense, but I assume you are saying that audience members agreed with the position that climate change is real and at least partly man-made. And how do you know why they agreed? Where you there? No? Then shut up.

In fact it says that "none of the panelists disputed the assertion that the world's climate is changing or that humans are partly responsible".

In any no case panel discussion cannot concude on such a major issue- a panel discussion is a forum for debate, not a decision making body. People have devoted their whole lives studying this issue and you think that a few hours of people arguing their opinions is enough? Perhaps you also think that reading a little about it on the internet will make you knowledgeable.
Oh, I forgot, you do.

We've already established you have no set position on this thing. Why can't you put your mistakes behind you and move on instead of making yourself look silly.

WMC also said:

Sure junior, not once, but twice you took the bait ! And after I detailed and explained to you how I lay out the chum for you chumps. Now that, is amusing

Debating is not about getting people to bite, unless you are accepting that your argument was a pile of old cobblers (and it was, as usual) and unless your purpose here is to annoy people (which you admitted it is). Do you know what that makes you? (Clue: Starts with a T, lives in Norwegian forests, ugly little things, really).

It amazes and amuses me how clever you think you are by spouting out this bullshit and then sitting back while we expose the absurdity of every single point you make. Have you not realised it makes you look like a complete fool?

We've been through this, moron, and I made you look pretty silly back then when I said:

WMC said:

The story was bait. Debate is like chess. I`d previously read that “ study” and posted the op-ed knowing someone on the left would bite.
How do you think I run circles around V.I. Give them enough rope…

So you accept that you post any old shit on these forums in the hope that someone will bite? That doesn't do much for your credibility, mate. But it does confirm my theories. That in reality, your posts consist mainly of drivel, your beliefs waver but your aim remains singular: to piss the hell out of liberals.

Here's an old classic to get you riled. And remember, debating is like chess. Checkmate, buddy. Find a new game to play. Barbie dolls might be good for you.


Below are the 10 pillar's of WMC's faith.

1. The Christian right is ALWAYS right. That is why it is called "the right". The left should therefore be called "the wrong".
2. Everything I say is right and anyone who doesn't agree with me is a communist, a Stalinist or worse
3. My sources are gospel. All other sources are leftist propaganda unless I choose to use them myself.
4. George Bush is the second coming, Condi Rice is Mary Magdalene and Dick Cheney is Peter and Paul rolled into one.
5. Environmentalists are wrong. Conservatives like me, who've never read a single scientific paper know more than all those guys with PhDs. Global warming is not happening. If it is happening, it's normal. If it's not normal, it's not caused by carbon emissions.
6. If they really want a clean environment, poor people should cut with the graffiti and go to the toilet less.
7. The war in Iraq was justified. It was won. Nobody is dying. Crime rates in Iraq are lower than in downtown Detroit. The economy is booming.
8. Gay people are sick, demented pervs.
9. Annoying people for the hell of it is fun. The purpose of a trangender forum isn't to communicate with and about transgirls but to annoy the hell out of all the other members.
10. Annnoying people can best be done by making no sense at all and by always insisting I am right. Which, of course, I am.

So, here we have you, an incompetent buffoon who cannot play chess (from what I can gather) and has little knowledge of...well...anything it seems, but you seem to think that you "own" me. Well, if it makes you happy. It seems a shame to burst your bubble, and I've always been understanding with the mentally handicapped.

But I'm done "debating" with you, moron. Like I said, I'm allergic to assholes, and I'm just about to have a sneezing fit.

[chefmike]

We are the species that burns the world to stay warm.

[insert_namehere]

WMC said:

Climate change? Naturally. The major cause, man-made? Nope. And the audience members agreed simply because the world-is-ending crowd do not have the facts.

The above sentence does not actually make much sense, but I assume you are saying that audience members agreed with the position that climate change is real and at least partly man-made. And how do you know why they agreed? Where you there? No? Then shut up.

Now, I'm just sort of GUESSING here.... but, you know... I've found that when I make the statement that "Pie can kill you" to most people... they disagree with me.

This is becuase they don't have the facts.

I'll point out to them that in pie-producing countries, the majority of people that have died... HAVE EATEN PIES!!! at some point in their life.

This is a fact - an undeniable fact.

So, if the audience members knew the real facts:
1. Various parts of the earth get warmer at various times of the year.
2. Sometimes they get colder.
3. It was really hot when dinosaurs were around.
4. Dinosaurs caused global warming
5. Dinosaurs are all dead now.
6. Michael Critchton can make dinosaurs.
7. When the earth gets warm enough he'll make some more.
8. These dinosaurs will cause global warming and then die because it's so hot.
9. Gasoline is made from old dinosaurs.
10. Michael Critchton wants more gas.

They'd have agreed that global warming isn't happening because there aren't any dinosaurs and that Michael Critchon solved our energy problems forever.

So, there you have it. Even 6th Graders in Longmont can't dispute that.