# Now Liberals have taken over my kids homework



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

So I was up until 10:30 helping my son study for a "social studies" test and do his "geography" homework.

I was appalled at how liberal bias has invaded these classes. The geography homework should have been titled "global warming" homework. 
The social studies looked more like "white-guilt" studies.
My wife is a 1st grade teacher. luckily, she doesn't have to teach liberal slanted propaganda because they're so young. We both have to spend a lot of time reprogramming our kids. Luckily they're smart enough to understand most of it is a bunch of crap.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> So I was up until 10:30 helping my son study for a "social studies" test and do his "geography" homework.
> 
> I was appalled at how liberal bias has invaded these classes. The geography homework should have been titled "global warming" homework.
> The social studies looked more like "white-guilt" studies.
> My wife is a 1st grade teacher. luckily, she doesn't have to teach liberal slanted propaganda because they're so young. We both have to spend a lot of time reprogramming our kids. Luckily they're smart enough to understand most of it is a bunch of crap.


What grade is your son in? I'm curious how geography can be turned liberal. I thought geography was where things are? Like state and country capitals and such. At least that's what it was when I was in school. Social Studies can be the dangerous one.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Well, kind of hard to take on the climate aspect of geology without global warming. It was always a science issue first. Flat vs round earth used to be a political and religious issue too.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

Whoever believes in man caused global warming has got their head in a snow drift!


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Why? We've drastically altered the atmosphere. We happen to live under one of the heavy air traffic routes to europe and the seeding of the clouds from jet exhaust particulate has increased our precipitation and cloud cover quite a bit. They only had theorized it until the week without planes after Sept 11. The insolence levels went back to those of 50-60 years ago in just a week and returned shortly after air traffic resumed.



discbinedr said:


> Whoever believes in man caused global warming has got their head in a snow drift!


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

Just because you, sir, have jet exhaust over your head doesn't prove much.


----------



## urednecku (Oct 18, 2010)

> I was appalled at how liberal bias has invaded these classes. The geography homework should have been titled "global warming" homework.
> The social studies looked more like "white-guilt" studies.
> 
> We both have to spend a lot of time reprogramming our kids.


Another good reason home-schooling is growing so fast. It's not near as hard as lots of people think it is. You can teach them what/how you want, and as long as they are making progress all is good. (At least around here.)

Other reasons are some of the "social skills" they do NOT learn, such as some of the language, "unlicensed pharmaceutical's", etc.

Wife says the hardest part is having to put up with your own kids all day every day.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

urednecku said:


> Another good reason home-schooling is growing so fast. It's not near as hard as lots of people think it is. You can teach them what/how you want, and as long as they are making progress all is good. (At least around here.)
> 
> Other reasons are some of the "social skills" they do NOT learn, such as some of the language, "unlicensed pharmaceutical's", etc.
> 
> Wife says the hardest part is having to put up with your own kids all day every day.


I wish we could home school. But there are two things keeping us from it. Our son is a very social only child with no cousins his age around so he needs the company of other kids. My wife and I are not cut out to be teachers and our son isn't cut out to have us be his teachers as evidenced by doing homework with him. Though if I taught him math I wouldn't have to figure out this Common Core way of teaching math. Some parents fail miserably at being home school teachers. There is a couple kids at our church whose parents home school them that at age 10 and 8 they don't know how to read yet. I have the utmost respect for parents that can actually be good teachers.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I couldn't do it. Couldn't stand to review stuff when I was in school, still can't stand to have to go over anything more than once with anybody.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

slowzuki said:


> Why? We've drastically altered the atmosphere. We happen to live under one of the heavy air traffic routes to europe and the seeding of the clouds from jet exhaust particulate has increased our precipitation and cloud cover quite a bit. They only had theorized it until the week without planes after Sept 11. The insolence levels went back to those of 50-60 years ago in just a week and returned shortly after air traffic resumed.


And one volcano eruption can cause more global change than anything man has done since the birth of Christ. 
Is a volcano eruption man made global warming?


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> And one volcano eruption can cause more global change than anything man has done since the birth of Christ.
> Is a volcano eruption man made global warming?


Now you went and did it, since global warming is turning into a flop, now Al Bore will start siting man made volcanic eruptions as a problem and will make millions off that.


----------



## rjmoses (Apr 4, 2010)

I didn't learn much in school, but I did learn to learn.

It is in the interest of politicians to control education. If you control education, you can control what people think. If you control what people think, you control how they behave. If you control how they behave, you control them.

It's the inverse of the old saying:

"Watch your thoughts; they become words. Watch your words; they become actions. Watch your actions; they become habit. Watch your habits; they become character. Watch your character; it becomes your destiny."*

Government should not be involved in education!

Ralph

*This quote has been attributed to Margaret Thatcher, Lao Tze, Mahatma Ghandi, Ralph Waldo Emerson and others.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Thats why students are being expelled for even drawing a gun, making a finger gun or eating a pop tart into a gun shape, get em programmed into thinking even a picture of a gun is bad and it will be much easier to take everyones guns away when todays kids are voting.


----------



## urednecku (Oct 18, 2010)

Teslan said:


> I wish we could home school. But there are two things keeping us from it. * 1)*Our son is a very social only child with no cousins his age around so he needs the company of other kids. 2) My wife and I are not cut out to be teachers and our son isn't cut out to have us be his teachers as evidenced by doing homework with him. Though if I taught him math I wouldn't have to figure out this Common Core way of teaching math. 3)Some parents fail miserably at being home school teachers. There is a couple kids at our church whose parents home school them that at age 10 and 8 they don't know how to read yet. 4) I have the utmost respect for parents that can actually be good teachers.


1) We don't have any kids close enough to us for ours to play -or socialize- with either. (We have 2 @ home right now, ages 10 and 17 that do get along great, more like best friends than brothers.) And the 'company' they had when they did go to school -public or private, we tried both- is one of the main reasons we took them out. They learned words I do not want used in my house, they were sick a lot, learned how to just walk out of school & ride down town with their 'friends', the list goes on. We have them in karate 2 times a week, and spend a fair amount of time at the YMCA, the 10 yo with the 'after-school' program and the 17 yo volunteering.

2) You don't have to be 'cut out' to be teachers, there are several different curriculum to choose from, some of them strict Christian based. I don't know about other states, but Florida has free on-line classes, the teachers call 1 on 1 with the student to make sure the work is being done and help any way they can. They talk to a parent at least once a month with progress reports, to answer any questions, or help any way they can. They are not limited to "school hours", but any time during the day or on weekends.

3) Just like any thing else. Some parents are just too lazy to have to worry about their children's education. I understand lots of 'students' are getting into college now that can not read good enough to know what they read, much less understand what they are supposed to learn from it.

When our 27 yo son was ready for his GED (which, by the way says on the top of the paper "HIGH SCHOOL DIPLOMA", GED is not found on the paper) test he had to wait about 5 months until he turned 16. He had the 2nd highest score in the room of 30 people. The highest score was also home-schooled.

4) I give all credit for my kid's schoolin' to my wife, she's the one that makes sure things are done & keeps up with it.


----------



## Teslan (Aug 20, 2011)

urednecku said:


> 1) We don't have any kids close enough to us for ours to play -or socialize- with either. (We have 2 @ home right now, ages 10 and 17 that do get along great, more like best friends than brothers.) And the 'company' they had when they did go to school -public or private, we tried both- is one of the main reasons we took them out. They learned words I do not want used in my house, they were sick a lot, learned how to just walk out of school & ride down town with their 'friends', the list goes on. We have them in karate 2 times a week, and spend a fair amount of time at the YMCA, the 10 yo with the 'after-school' program and the 17 yo volunteering.
> 
> 2) You don't have to be 'cut out' to be teachers, there are several different curriculum to choose from, some of them strict Christian based. I don't know about other states, but Florida has free on-line classes, the teachers call 1 on 1 with the student to make sure the work is being done and help any way they can. They talk to a parent at least once a month with progress reports, to answer any questions, or help any way they can. They are not limited to "school hours", but any time during the day or on weekends.
> 
> ...


Actually I really like the school our son is at. It's the same private church school I went to as a kid. His teachers are great. But there is just one kid that is ruining the classroom. He is a bad influence on the other kids and a disruption in the classroom. This kid has had a hard life so far though. Born to a meth head mom. But now living with a grandma that isn't all that much better and is slightly crazy. We aren't sure what to do about that. Although I would say in public school I suspect there would be worse kids or teachers that wouldn't care.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

Yes volcano have some effect, but it isn't everything, look at the iceland eruption that was so vast, maybe just offsetting some warming. The soot from all the combustion happening has been changing stuff too.

Coal plants on the US east gave us brutal acid rain here, still lots of lakes poisoned out. Also get pile o mercury from the coal burning. California had crazy smog from a few trucks/cars there.

You pee a bit in the bath water and it doesn't look yellow, doesn't mean you can keep peeing in it forever without it turning yellow.



JD3430 said:


> And one volcano eruption can cause more global change than anything man has done since the birth of Christ.
> Is a volcano eruption man made global warming?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

slowzuki said:


> Yes volcano have some effect, but it isn't everything, look at the iceland eruption that was so vast, maybe just offsetting some warming. The soot from all the combustion happening has been changing stuff too.Coal plants on the US east gave us brutal acid rain here, still lots of lakes poisoned out. Also get pile o mercury from the coal burning. California had crazy smog from a few trucks/cars there.You pee a bit in the bath water and it doesn't look yellow, doesn't mean you can keep peeing in it forever without it turning yellow.


Pollution and global warming hoaxes are 2 different things.

Global warming/cooling is a natural process that has been repeated over and over again for millions of years.
Al Gore is a fraud looking for a way to redirect money in the form of carbon credits.
He simply looked at a natural cycle that occurs all the time and took advantage of it by creating fear.
I know it, and you know it, too.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

Anybody remember about global cooling in the '70s?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

discbinedr said:


> Anybody remember about global cooling in the '70s?


Oh of course, I do!!
Either one is designed to create fear.., seas rising next to coastal cities with global warming and floridas citrus crops destroyed by global cooling.

Pick a hoax, tax working people because of said hoax, then redirect the tax revenue to the secret recipients.
That's called liberal politics.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

All I agree with is the effort to sensationalize it is kind of silly, especially with a democrat at the helm as it automatically creates a league of republican enemies before the issue is even looked at in detail.



JD3430 said:


> He simply looked at a natural cycle that occurs all the time and took advantage of it by creating fear.
> I know it, and you know it, too.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

That is very similar to conservative games. USSR was terribly far behind but lobbyists for the defence industry pushed to portray them as very advanced to the public to get tax dollars for themselves.



JD3430 said:


> Pick a hoax, tax working people because of said hoax, then redirect the tax revenue to the secret recipients.
> That's called liberal politics.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

slowzuki said:


> That is very similar to conservative games. USSR was terribly far behind but lobbyists for the defence industry pushed to portray them as very advanced to the public to get tax dollars for themselves.


What time frame did what your referencing occur?

Regards, Mike


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

slowzuki said:


> That is very similar to conservative games. USSR was terribly far behind but lobbyists for the defence industry pushed to portray them as very advanced to the public to get tax dollars for themselves.


Hogwash


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

JD3430 said:


> Hogwash


Don't be too sure of that, a supposedly conservative president foisted the Patriot Act on us and look where thats led.

Abe Lincoln pretty much ended the sovereignty of the states with the civil war.


----------



## slowzuki (Mar 8, 2011)

What time reference to the USSR? Well about until the last 10 years of the cold war. The entire time before they heavily lagged the US in tech and armaments with much of their tech coming from secrets stolen from the west. Always playing catch up in almost every aspect of tech.

Defence companies heavily promoted the opposite idea that the US was lagging and needed to catch up and massive investment in their products was the answer.

I'm torn here because I'm a tech guy and this resulted in a pile of amazing cool tech being developed but the taxpayer paid for it heavily. It was not borne on the shoulders of private industry.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

I agree we have a military/industrial complex as Dwight Eisenhower warned.


----------



## Vol (Jul 5, 2009)

slowzuki said:


> What time reference to the USSR? Well about until the last 10 years of the cold war. The entire time before they heavily lagged the US in tech and armaments with much of their tech coming from secrets stolen from the west. Always playing catch up in almost every aspect of tech.
> 
> Defence companies heavily promoted the opposite idea that the US was lagging and needed to catch up and massive investment in their products was the answer.
> 
> I'm torn here because I'm a tech guy and this resulted in a pile of amazing cool tech being developed but the taxpayer paid for it heavily. It was not borne on the shoulders of private industry.


The Soviet Union has been capable of delivering a nuclear warhead into the United States since the mid-to late fifties. That is undeniable. We do not know for fact that the USSR "heavily lagged" behind the US...they were capable of killing millions in this country....that is reason enough for informed folks to be concerned with defending this country. The best offense is a great defense and under Reagan our defense was superb....so much so it caused the collapse of the Soviet Union trying to keep up with the US. The earth is full of bones of those that have under estimated their enemies....maybe Rolling Stone magazine or Mother Earth News or some other liberal news source claimed Russia "lagged heavily" in defense....defense companies promoted staying ahead of our enemies.

Of course the taxpayer pays for defense in this country....but not near as heavily as we are paying now for the obama "make work" and "bail out /give away" programs.

Mike


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

You people wouldn't understand science if it punched you in the face. Slowzuki, I congratulate you on even trying to reason with some of these comments.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

8350HiTech said:


> You people wouldn't understand science if it punched you in the face. Slowzuki, I congratulate you on even trying to reason with some of these comments.


I liked this just so I could unlike it.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

mlappin said:


> Don't be too sure of that, a supposedly conservative president foisted the Patriot Act on us and look where thats led.
> 
> Abe Lincoln pretty much ended the sovereignty of the states with the civil war.


"Supposedly". Not by my standards. He was not a left wing nutjob but he was not conservative.


----------



## Blue Duck (Jun 4, 2009)

This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with my eleven year old daughter about how people use science to support their beliefs. Then they reject science if it does not support their beliefs. She had read an article in a farm publication that said people that had a problem with GMO crops were ignorant and did not understand science. Another article in the same paper about global warming discredited any science that indicated it could be real.

Personally I believe the science that supports man made global warming is true but I don't think the consequences are near as dire as they say it is.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

8350HiTech said:


> You people wouldn't understand science if it punched you in the face. Slowzuki, I congratulate you on even trying to reason with some of these comments.


A little un-called for. Broad generalizations usually don't make a lot of friends.

Whose science by the way? It used to be accepted that blood letting or leeching was healthy as it got the excess blood out of your system which harbored evil spirits.

Drilling a hole in somebody's skull was also acceptable as it let the evil spirits out that caused migraines.

The science of the 70's said we were heading for the next ice age, the science of the nineties said Florida would be under water by now and the ice caps would be completely gone.

Al Gore is asking for volunteers with hair dryers to help take care of those pesky ice caps btw that not only came back, but one of em is at record levels. 

Heres some more doozies: http://listverse.com/2009/01/19/10-debunked-scientific-beliefs-of-the-past/


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

Blue Duck said:


> This thread reminds me of a conversation I had with my eleven year old daughter about how people use science to support their beliefs. Then they reject science if it does not support their beliefs. She had read an article in a farm publication that said people that had a problem with GMO crops were ignorant and did not understand science. Another article in the same paper about global warming discredited any science that indicated it could be real.
> 
> Personally I believe the science that supports man made global warming is true but I don't think the consequences are near as dire as they say it is.


It's possible to find credible articles and studies that claim todays wild weather is part of a greater cycle and it will be returning back to "normal" sometime in our lifetimes and it also claims any co2 that man is adding to the atmosphere will be a boon to agriculture that will be badly needed as the earths population continues to grow.


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

8350HiTech said:


> You people wouldn't understand science if it punched you in the face. Slowzuki, I congratulate you on even trying to reason with some of these comments.


Time out for you, go stand in the corner for 10 minutes.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Science will support any theory with enough money to fund the study. One I can never understand how anyone buys is heating with wood is bad for the environment. Really? Some people....


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

What science? Which scientists? Really? All of them. Literally. ALL. Every actual climate scientist will agree there is warming. (Pat Robertson is not a climate scientist) Among them, well over 95 are in agreement that humans are a part or all of that. Why? Because of massive amounts of data obtained from ice cores and sediment cores and anything else that has had air trapped for millennia indicate there has been a steady increase in atmospheric CO2 since the start of the industrial revolution. (Can't blame that on a volcano) You can argue this is just a big coincidence, or you can admit that far more likely we are causing it.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

Sure. I will look at a sampling of the last 20 years and draw my conclusions off of that. Good science. Kind of like grabbing 8 random people in the us. All next to each other. Get their thoughts on things and speak it as the voice of america.

Do humans have an impact on the earth? Absolutely. Do I believe the global warming slash climate change slash used to be global cooling garbage? Nope. Where are temps taken? Human activity in a big city raises temperature.

Science can prove anything.

It does not make it right.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

deadmoose said:


> Do humans have an impact on the earth? Absolutely. Do I believe the global warming slash climate change slash used to be global cooling garbage? Nope. Where are temps taken? Human activity in a big city raises temperature.
> 
> Science can prove anything.
> 
> It does not make it right.


Ah, the old cities are warm argument. You know they actually account for this in calculations, right? As you say "good" science is way ahead of you on this.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

OK , I'm not a scientist but a lot of people smarter than me would disagree with the 95% consensus claimed by hi-tech. IMHO , considering the vastness of our atmosphere and the punyness of humans our emissions would be about the equivalent of a fart in a football stadium.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

My fault. Closer to 97%.

http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus

In case you don't want to read it all and the myriad of international science organizations that are included. Everything is from a legitimate science journal.

"Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1"

W. R. L. Anderegg, "Expert Credibility in Climate Change," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, "Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Why does the US have to bankrupt itself because Al Gore says so, yet they leave India and China alone.
Probably the same people dont want their "made in China" junk to go up in price.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

8350HiTech said:


> My fault. Closer to 97%.
> http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus
> In case you don't want to read it all and the myriad of international science organizations that are included. Everything is from a legitimate science journal.
> "Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1"
> ...


So when it cools what do the 97% think?


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

The majority voted for B Hußein. Sometimes the majority is wrong.


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

deadmoose said:


> So when it cools what do the 97% think?


They'll blame George Bush.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

deadmoose said:


> Science will support any theory with enough money to fund the study. One I can never understand how anyone buys is heating with wood is bad for the environment. Really? Some people....


Far as carbon goes, it doesn't matter if the tree dies and rots in the forest or you cut it down and burn it, the tree releases the same amount of carbon back into the atmosphere. However, you burned fossil fuels to cut said tree up so it's not truly carbon neutral. Whether or not a chemical reaction occurs while burning said wood and releases more than just carbon is not my forte.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

So global warming is a fact now. Just like the next ice age was coming in the 70's? Just like eating a egg will cause a heart attack.

Once carbon content in the atmosphere reaches a certain percent it has a diminishing return. After a certain point twice as much carbon doesn't make it twice as warm.

For every link that supposedly proves global warming I can find one that is just as reputable or more so that disproves the earth is actually warming. (Isn't google grand?)

http://www.newsmax.com/MarcMorano/Evidence-Global-Warming-Theory/2011/10/24/id/415507

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2012/05/31/sorry-global-warming-alarmists-the-earth-is-cooling/

Getting the nation to believe in anything, and I mean anything is just another ploy to gain an already over reaching government yet more control over us that the constitution never intended.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

It's really easy to find links that have no actual references to peer reviewed science journals.


----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

According to the Washington Post 85% of college professors are liberal. Does that make them right? Actually, the article says 77/15 but we know what that means.......


----------



## somedevildawg (Jun 20, 2011)

8350HiTech said:


> It's really easy to find links that have no actual references to peer reviewed science journals.


It's really easy to find links to support whatever it is you want to believe.....but hey, we wouldn't be able to look at links if it weren't for Al Gore, so for that I say a big "thank you" to Al.....for the rest of you that hang on every word these scientists "conclude" ....try crystal lite, it's a bit better than KoolAid, not quite so sugar coated....


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

I heard scientists & professors receive lots of money from the US govt to perform research.
I wonder if that money influences their outcomes????

Nah.....


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Back to the homework:

I help my kids with their homework every night. Its amazing the amount of content there is on global warming, wounded knee, slavery. My kids know those subjects inside and out.

Ask them about the constitution and they havent got a clue.
My kids dont even know their rights.

This is what really upsets me.
Liberal agenda? all day long at school
articles of the constitution? not even mentioned.

And were supposed to believe what teachers & professors teach our kids when they are 85% liberal?


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

somedevildawg said:


> It's really easy to find links to support whatever it is you want to believe.....but hey, we wouldn't be able to look at links if it weren't for Al Gore, so for that I say a big "thank you" to Al.....for the rest of you that hang on every word these scientists "conclude" ....try crystal lite, it's a bit better than KoolAid, not quite so sugar coated....


Not quite. See, I said science journals. Those aren't "beliefs". They're based on real data. While no computer climate model is going to be absolutely (or maybe even moderately) accurate, they're still the best resource available. You may choose to make jokes about Al Gore, you may choose to refer to the president by a variety of less-than-clever, derogatory nicknames, you may choose to have your head in the sand, but at the end of the day, anyone here wouldn't let a scientist tell them how to make their hay so why is it that you can tell a scientist how to project climate trends?


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

Well,,, my heads not in any sand.
Im skepitcal when a gov't or a man goes on an agenda driven crusade to take my money or my rights.

If You want to believe everything Obama says and push his agenda, you're going to get blowback, 8350.
Probably why anyone up for re-election doesnt want anything to do with him.

Al Gore practically defines the word hippocrite.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

8350HiTech said:


> Not quite. See, I said science journals. Those aren't "beliefs". They're based on real data. While no computer climate model is going to be absolutely (or maybe even moderately) accurate, they're still the best resource available. You may choose to make jokes about Al Gore, you may choose to refer to the president by a variety of less-than-clever, derogatory nicknames, you may choose to have your head in the sand, but at the end of the day, anyone here wouldn't let a scientist tell them how to make their hay so why is it that you can tell a scientist how to project climate trends?


Well that's somewhat incorrect, scientific data gave us real numbers on what hay will store at and what happens when it's wetter. Research and such gave us references for how much fertilizer is needed for each ton of crop. These are cold hard facts that can easily be accessed and seen from year to year.

Nothing about the claim of global warming has such cold hard facts that can be seen and compared. Florida still isn't under water, not only do the ice caps still exist but the south pole has a record amount of ice while the north pole is rapidly gaining. During our heatwave of 2012, the UK barely had a summer.

Follow the links within the following articles:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/22/ipcc-railroad-engineer-pachauri-acknowledges-no-warming-for-17-years/

http://www.ijreview.com/2013/09/81299-mark-steyns-epic-rant-uns-ipcc-confesses-global-warming-15-years/

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2485772/Global-warming-pause-20-years-Arctic-sea-ice-started-recover.html

So far the government has brain washed an entire generation about warming, just like their trying to brain was a generation of kids now by expelling them for making a finger gun or eating a pop tart into a gun shape.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

His agenda can be whatever he wants it to be. It doesn't change the source data. I didn't vote for Obama. If a republican wins the next election, prepare for your mind to be blown when the data doesn't change.

Btw, it's "hypocrite". Leave the poor hippos out of this.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

8350HiTech said:


> Btw, it's "hypocrite". Leave the poor hippos out of this.


Can't sorry, hippo farts probably contribute to global warming more than cow farts.

Politician farts are the worst, now they have hot air spewing out both ends.


----------



## 8350HiTech (Jul 26, 2013)

So, mlappin, your first two links suggest that there has been essentially no warming for the 10-15 years. And that is quite true. Of course, the first link also says that has to continue for at least another 15 for us to consider it an actual trend and not just a statistical anomaly. I, in the meantime, intend to be good to the environment.

Look at it like not believing in god. If you die and there is no heaven or hell, eh, no harm no foul. If you die and there is a god, oops!

If you side with the third article (which, btw, very nice. One of the credible ones among the three percent minority) and continue to disregard what you put into our atmosphere and on your death bed have seen no changes, good job. Again, no harm no foul. If you disregard and on your death bed you hear that NYC is underwater, oops! Eh, you're almost dead anyway. You probably won't care at that point.

Just be good to the environment. It can't hurt.


----------



## mlappin (Jun 25, 2009)

I try, but I still don't think it's the governments place to create job and business killing regulations.

If enough people are that worried about global warming the people will find companies that are more environmentally friendly than their competitors.

Instead of using more clean burning technology's like Germany has in place to burn coal, the current administration is just going to regulate the coal industry to the point of extinction. Lots of lost jobs there, from the people actually mining the coal, the people that maintain and build new machines for coal and the people that work at coal fired power plants.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/20130724/why-germanys-greenest-city-building-coal-fired-power-plant

http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/new-coal-fired-plants-could-be-key-to-german-energy-revolution-a-854335.html


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

8350HiTech said:


> His agenda can be whatever he wants it to be. It doesn't change the source data. I didn't vote for Obama. If a republican wins the next election, prepare for your mind to be blown when the data doesn't change.
> Btw, it's "hypocrite". Leave the poor hippos out of this.


Oh, I see now I you're going to correct misspellings? Oh boy....


----------



## carcajou (Jan 28, 2011)

JD3430 said:


> Oh, I see now I you're going to correct misspellings? Oh boy....


LOL! I love the internet. If you can't refute someone else's point of view........pick on their spelling.


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)




----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)

This rings so true today....


----------



## deadmoose (Oct 30, 2011)




----------



## discbinedr (Mar 4, 2013)

8350HiTech said:


> Not quite. See, I said science journals. Those aren't "beliefs". They're based on real data. While no computer climate model is going to be absolutely (or maybe even moderately) accurate, they're still the best resource available. You may choose to make jokes about Al Gore, you may choose to refer to the president by a variety of less-than-clever, derogatory nicknames, you may choose to have your head in the sand, but at the end of the day, anyone here wouldn't let a scientist tell them how to make their hay so why is it that you can tell a scientist how to project climate trends?


I think it's telling that nobody would let a scientist make their hay. Sometimes real life experience is worth more than data. Looking outside I see a lot of white.....


----------



## JD3430 (Jan 1, 2012)

"....... You may choose to make jokes about Al Gore, you may choose to refer to the president by a variety of less-than-clever, derogatory nicknames, you may choose to have your head in the sand, but at the end of the day, anyone here wouldn't let a scientist tell them how to make their hay so why is it that you can tell a scientist how to project climate trends?"

And why are the nicknames we give the president on Hay Talk "less than clever"?
After reading the nicknames given to Obama here, I'd say a lot of them are very clever.

Al Gore? I used to respect him, but he lost me when he tried to sell us the man made global warming after he invented the Internet and told us to buy small cars to reduce our carbon footprint while living in a 15,000 sf mansion and flying around in a Lear jet.

What's that called again? Sorry, I can't spell.


----------



## Guest (Feb 22, 2014)

8350HiTech said:


> Not quite. See, I said science journals. Those aren't "beliefs". They're based on real data. While no computer climate model is going to be absolutely (or maybe even moderately) accurate, they're still the best resource available. You may choose to make jokes about Al Gore, you may choose to refer to the president by a variety of less-than-clever, derogatory nicknames, you may choose to have your head in the sand, but at the end of the day, anyone here wouldn't let a scientist tell them how to make their hay so why is it that you can tell a scientist how to project climate trends?


IMO some science journals are opinions. Even if its "proven" doesnt mean its right. Scientists have differe,nt opinions even if 97% somewhat agree. What they teach in science books in school which site science joirnals are definitly "beliefs"! I know im made from something a lot more than star dust. And these are the same books that preach global warming. On top of all this a lot of scientists have been proven wrong many times. But i do agree with u that it doesnt hurt to be nice to the earth


----------

