Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Fucking doubters. This group is going for your children. Don't be surprised to be called an ecoterrorist becase the consensus is in . Global warming is real and it is caused by man.

The NCSE does:

The National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is a not-for-profit, membership organization providing information and resources for schools, parents, and concerned citizens working to keep climate science in public school science education. We educate the press and public about the scientific and educational aspects of controversies surrounding climate change, and supply needed information and advice to defend good science education at local, state, and national levels. Our 5000 members are scientists, teachers, clergy, and citizens with diverse religious and political affiliations.

National Center for Science Education http://ncse.com/climate" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The social controversy over climate change is in part due to climate change denial. In order to defend and support the teaching of climate change, it is important to understand — and be able to rebut — arguments about climate science, and to understand why people choose to attack such well-tested science. “Climate Change Denial” provides the essential tools, and also describes how climate change denial is already threatening the integrity of science education.

Denier bitch. If you were only dead, our Earth would be so much better.

Boo! That sounds horrible.

Bunch of lying wankers.

.

Cap'n Cat's mom is a man.

This thread is hot.

What?! This girl hates the NCSE? Truly an American at heart...and then some. Meow!

More. We want more.

This just in... They want to teach science in schools.

They also say it is settled science and don't want any deviation from what they say.

SeattleGriz wrote:They also say it is settled science and don't want any deviation from what they say.

Your opinion seems pretty settled itself

Or maybe you're all riled up because they're also targeting Intelligent Design. Maybe Jesus can grant your wish and strike them down

Brock Landers wrote:Or maybe you're all riled up because they're also targeting Intelligent Design. Maybe Jesus can grant your wish and strike them down

Not really. My issue is global warming science is far from settled, but yet we have a science group trying to prevent the scientific method from being applied.

SeattleGriz wrote:

Brock Landers wrote:Or maybe you're all riled up because they're also targeting Intelligent Design. Maybe Jesus can grant your wish and strike them down

Not really. My issue is global warming science is far from settled, but yet we have a science group trying to prevent the scientific method from being applied.

You know its all bullshit. I can look outside and see frost on the ground right now.

houndawg wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote: Not really. My issue is global warming science is far from settled, but yet we have a science group trying to prevent the scientific method from being applied.

You know its all bullshit. I can look outside and see frost on the ground right now.

I won't post the article, but a list of all the factors needed to build a model were listed and it was huge. Essentially too many moving parts.

How is teaching our kids to bury their head in the sand, part of the scientific method?

SeattleGriz wrote:

houndawg wrote:
You know its all bullshit. I can look outside and see frost on the ground right now.

I won't post the article, but a list of all the factors needed to build a model were listed and it was huge. Essentially too many moving parts.

How is teaching our kids to bury their head in the sand, part of the scientific method?

For a fan of naturopathy you sure seem interested in the scientific method all of a sudden

Brock Landers wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote: I won't post the article, but a list of all the factors needed to build a model were listed and it was huge. Essentially too many moving parts.

How is teaching our kids to bury their head in the sand, part of the scientific method?

For a fan of naturopathy you sure seem interested in the scientific method all of a sudden

My Naturopath kicks ass. He is very integrated with the medical community here in Seattle. I would say our relationship is based on fixing chronic issues and anything acute is fixed via Western methods. Essentially, he knows what he doesn't know and refers when needed.

I will admit there are some sketchy Naturopaths, but I found a great one.

What does Naturopathy have to do with this discussion?

Well because you clearly have bought into an industry that 100% does not align with the scientific method, while at the same time trying to use (supposed) faults with the studies done on climate change to discredit it

I'm just trying to reconcile how you could simultaneously believe both things

I brought Naturopathy to the discussion? I thought you brought it up. What specifically are you inferring about Naturopathy not following the scientific method? Example please.

SeattleGriz wrote:I brought Naturopathy to the discussion? I thought you brought it up. What specifically are you inferring about Naturopathy not following the scientific method? Example please.

Example? Not sure if serious, but homeopathy. It has no scientific basis, it in fact disobeys the basic laws of science, so the explanation is it's magic. Literally.

And I didn't say you brought it up. I'm just trying to understand how a mind like yours thinks

Brock Landers wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:I brought Naturopathy to the discussion? I thought you brought it up. What specifically are you inferring about Naturopathy not following the scientific method? Example please.

Example? Not sure if serious, but homeopathy. It has no scientific basis, it in fact disobeys the basic laws of science, so the explanation is it's magic. Literally.

And I didn't say you brought it up. I'm just trying to understand how a mind like yours thinks

I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

kalm wrote:

Brock Landers wrote: Example? Not sure if serious, but homeopathy. It has no scientific basis, it in fact disobeys the basic laws of science, so the explanation is it's magic. Literally.

And I didn't say you brought it up. I'm just trying to understand how a mind like yours thinks

I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

There is a very legitimate basis for Naturopathy. Do you think you would see them practicing next to MD's if there wasn't?

But, the whole point about this thread is how the NCSE feels that the junk science that is currently supporting global warming is correct and any dissension must be squashed.

SeattleGriz wrote:

kalm wrote:
I'm pretty sure there's a legit basis for some naturopathy.

There is a very legitimate basis for Naturopathy. Do you think you would see them practicing next to MD's if there wasn't?

But, the whole point about this thread is how the NCSE feels that the junk science that is currently supporting global warming is correct and any dissension must be squashed.

As I've mentioned before, link to some peer-reviewed science that you can't tie to big energy within a few clicks of the mouse and I'll listen.

...and to understand why people choose to attack such well-tested science. “Climate Change Denial” provides the essential tools, and also describes how climate change denial is already threatening the integrity of science education.

That statement is really disheartening. It's not "well tested" science. It's hardly "tested" at all. By that I mean it's not supported by direct "testing" through controlled experimentation.

And the thing about the "integrity of science education." What science education should emphasize is the scientific method. And the scientific method says that you support cause and effect statements with controlled experiments.

To me, if we had more people educated with respect to the scientific method it would cast MORE doubt on the cause and effect aspect of the climate change thing rather than less.

Very, very sad. Very, very disturbing.

Brock Landers wrote:

SeattleGriz wrote:I brought Naturopathy to the discussion? I thought you brought it up. What specifically are you inferring about Naturopathy not following the scientific method? Example please.

Example? Not sure if serious, but homeopathy. It has no scientific basis, it in fact disobeys the basic laws of science, so the explanation is it's magic. Literally.

And I didn't say you brought it up. I'm just trying to understand how a mind like yours thinks