Comments on: This Is The Dawning of Aquarius–In South Dakota

By: MeX31

MeX31 — Thu, 04 Mar 2010 22:53:19 +0000

I’ts been my belief that for a long time people have been confused because of a simple problem of labeling. Although it is evident that human activity is causing the world to get warmer, “global warming” may be a counterproductive name for the phenomenon. Especially since different parts of the world are likely to experience wild shifts in climate. If we could find a better term (I prefer anthropogenic climate change), then it would take a lot of wind out of the sails of the “It’s snowing out, how can global warming be true!?” crowd…

I understand “anthropogenic” might be a little over some peoples heads. Any suggestions?

By: Daniel J. Andrews

Daniel J. Andrews — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 23:19:09 +0000

I think balance on AGW is good. Teachers can show…

…global warming isn’t happening
…global warming is happening but it is the sun
…global warming is happening but it is galactic cosmic rays
…global warming is happening but it is El Ninos and the oceans
…global warming is happening every 1500 years
…global warming was happening but now it is cooling
…global warming is happening but any time now it will cool
…the hockey stick is broken and made by incompetent corrupt scientists
…the hockey stick supports it is the sun, GCR, El Ninos etc.

Then, they can show the actual science and the strong consensus on the mechanisms, and toss all those self-contradictory “balances” into the trash with the rest of the garbage. Of course, this presupposes the teachers actually have the necessary critical thinking skills and the discipline/time to learn the science…

Nice summary of the real science with Peter Sinclair’s latest Crock of the Week, What We Know About Climate Change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9SGw75pVas&feature=player_embedded

By: Amy

Amy — Mon, 01 Mar 2010 14:11:12 +0000

Tyler, no, not in this case – “effect” would be more of a result while “affect” is an influence. So here, ‘dynamics that can “influence/affect” world weather’ would be the correct usage.

By: Kathy Orlinsky

Kathy Orlinsky — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 13:44:38 +0000

the debate on global warming has subsumed political and philosophical viewpoints, which has complicated and prejudiced the scientific investigation of global climatic change phenomena

Wait, it’s the scientific community that is prejudiced? Um… project much?

By: Elliott Bignell

Elliott Bignell — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:54:31 +0000

They probably did mean “astronomical”, but it speaks volumes that they both would make the mistake and not pick it up later. This, my friends, is the level of scientific understanding typical of the Denial industry and of creationists.

By: Captain Skellett

Captain Skellett — Sat, 27 Feb 2010 02:56:10 +0000

roflmao – so glad they changes it before the vote, that would have been awfully embarrassing! Although studying how astrology relates to climate change would be… something… fun? Interesting? A complete waste of time?

Personally I blame global warming on Mars entering Virgo. Now that’s hot!

By: Romeo Vitelli

Romeo Vitelli — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:19:33 +0000

I guess yielding on the astrology point counts as a concession in the eyes of the bill’s supporters. Considering the give-and-take world of politics, you have to wonder what they got in return.

By: Tyler

Tyler — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 20:10:48 +0000

“Effect” is actually the correct verb there. The dynamics would effect (i.e., cause) the phenomena.

(Sorry if this is a duplicate comment.)

By: Loree Thomas

Loree Thomas — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:33:16 +0000

The version they finally passed has most of the truly stupid removed:

http://legis.state.sd.us/sessions/2010/Amendment.aspx?Amend=amdc1009tb.htm

Still.. it’s a political resolution protesting the politicization of a scientific issue… I’m assuming the irony was unintentional.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 26 Feb 2010 19:28:54 +0000

Next on the agenda: Pi=3. It says so in the Bible.