Houston-area school board votes to remove 13 chapters from state-approved science textbooks, citing controversial topics

[camille70]

Somewhat related to Houston schools...

A school board member campaigned against indoctrinating kids. Then she read the curriculum

Courtney Gore, a Granbury ISD school board member, has disavowed the far-right platform she campaigned on. Her defiance has brought her backlash. By Jeremy Schwartz, The Texas Tribune �and ...

www.dailykos.com

 

[Pommer]

I can't speak for all "Eternal Bliss" seekers - but those I know of tend to be more Conservative and enjoy things like hiking, camping, hunting, fishing etc - making them some of the most conservationist-minded people I know.

Not to mention their love of God and His Creation.

Which is all to the good…yes, many theists are “good stewards” of the planet.

What I see happening is they believe that God gave the Earth to Man for His purposes and that there is nothing that Man can do to frustrate or destroy those purposes.

I personally believe that anyone who believes that Man can destroy the Earth is someone infected with hubris or some level of delusion - thinking that we could destroy God's plan for His children.

Then when we get into how political the whole thing has become - it leaves many doubting the claims made - about how imminent or large the threat actually is.

I see it as a vehicle that people are using to make money and to gain power.

As a non-theist, I do not see Anyone rushing in to “save” Their plan or Creation and that whatever happens with the planet with regards to AGW is on human beings alone…and if we make Earth uninhabitable for human beings, that’ll be the endgame for evolution’s experiment in giving us brains that are bigger than they absolutely needed to be.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't believe that any change in sea level is a threat because we will notice the trend and apply mitigators to loss of life and property.

If it wasn't a threat then you wouldn't have to do anything about it.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I asked: 'Maybe you can point to any country who has done literally nothing.'

Your only response, using an analogy: '...yet they don't decide to really do anything about it...'

So we go to: 'So you think that some countries aren't doing enough, so therefore there can't be a problem.' And I asked you for the third time for some examples.

You have ignored the question. And I'll save you answering because I know why. You don't know of any countries that are literally doing nothing. You are basing an opinion on the stated position that 'they don't decide to really do anything' without examining the science behind the decision of every single country on the planet (bar 3) agreeing that a problem exists (you are being stepped through that as the thread proceeds and you show no indication that you are ahead of the curve in this matter).

But hey, it's probably not affecting you directly at this moment. So why bother.

If you were to reread my initial comment to you, I said, "Basically - it does not require the biggest polluters to really do anything."

I did not claim that there were countries that had "done literally nothing" - but that this Accord did not require anyone to "really do anything" - which leads me to believe that there is no imminent threat.

In my next comment - the one about the "house on fire" - I said again that an agreement about the house being on fire means nothing if "they don't decide to really do anything about it".

The lack of action - in regard to requiring that anyone actually do anything - leads me to believe that there is no fire or that the fire is not an imminent threat.

You tried to claim that my argument was that "there can't be a problem" because "countries are not doing enough" - which is a strawman.

I did not say that any country had "done literally nothing" - just that the lack of any requirement by this Accord not only makes it ineffectual but it does not add any credence to the idea that climate change is an imminent threat.

Your original argument was that climate change had to be an imminent threat because all these countries decided that it was.

I was only pointing out that them all agreeing that it is an imminent threat means little if they do not require anyone to really do anything.

That has always been my position.

Anyways, you have kept trying to go back to your strawman - claiming that I am avoiding your irrelevant question because it was about a claim that I never made - while I have been trying to correct you.

Now we are all caught up.

 

[Zaha Torte]

For those with beach-front properties on the leading edge of where climate change is making them unlivable, they're sometimes getting handouts from We The People to save them from total losses.

That doesn't change the fact that the loudest advocates of climate change are still those flying those private jets, sailing those massive yachts, driving the giant cars and buying up the beach-front property.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If doing nothing about a situation would result in loss of life or property, then that situation is, by definition, a threat.

A car driving down the street is not a threat unless I run into the street.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Do you think that there would be no serious repercussions to mankind detonating all their nuclear warheads simultaneously?

We know how this world will end from the scriptures. God knows the beginning from the end. We cannot frustrate His plans because they have already been revealed.

 

[Zaha Torte]

"Imminent" depends a lot on the nature of the situation.

Suppose you're in a car travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes into the street 200 feet in front of you. If no action is taken, there will be an accident in a little over 2 seconds. Fairly imminent.

But with a normal reaction time, the stopping distance is about 175 feet.

So disaster can be avoided.

But suppose you're the engineer of a cargo train travelling at 50 mph, and a child suddenly dashes onto the tracks half a mile in front of you.

Disaster is 30 seconds away, but in fact it is unavoidable. Because of its greater weight and inertia, it takes a mile for such a train to stop.

If we're talking a ship, the stopping distance might be a couple nautical miles, and the time it takes to stop might be 12 minutes.

View attachment 348160

The overall climate has even greater inertia. It may not seem to be moving 'fast' at less than a degree per decade. But the time it takes to stop it (much less reverse it) is also measured in decades. And some significant effects are decades away. And billions are already being spent to ameliorate them. The opportunity is now to start applying the brakes. We've already used up our "reaction time".

Sea levels are starting to rise faster. Here’s how much South Florida is expecting​

“Presently, sea level is tracking in the intermediate-high to high, the two fastest [future scenarios],” said Randall Parkinson, a coastal geologist with Florida International University. “The other three scenarios, you might not even think about because we’re already rising faster than that.”

Two feet of sea rise by 2060, compared to present-day levels, would be a shock to the system for Miami, where the average elevation is three feet. That’s why local governments — and the state — are spending billions to keep streets dry.

I don't see it as a threat. Things change.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Well. Are you aware of the country of thr Netherlands? Or perhaps thr situation in Bangladesh?

Netherlands has been fighting the ocean for centuries but it cannot win the speed of the changes brought by global warming. And in terms of hydrology, damning and water moving, nobody, and I mean NOBODY bests the Dutch.

And Bangladesh, well they are simply too poor.

In which case we need to consider whether something like the displacement of 20 million people is considered an event we should try to mitigate.

What is the alternative?

 

[Zaha Torte]

Sea level change is largely driven by melting of polar ice caps. The amount of melting in the future based on future temperature increases in the polar region. A collapse of an ice sheet could cause several meters or more of ocean rise. You can't mitigate against that. Cities will be just lost at that point.

What do you propose be done?

 

[RocksInMyHead]

A car driving down the street is not a threat unless I run into the street.

If you're talking about taking measures to protect life and property, you're already in the street in this analogy.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If it wasn't a threat then you wouldn't have to do anything about it.

I don't consider cars in the street a threat because I don't stand in the street.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Which is all to the good…yes, many theists are “good stewards” of the planet.

As a non-theist, I do not see Anyone rushing in to “save” Their plan or Creation and that whatever happens with the planet with regards to AGW is on human beings alone…and if we make Earth uninhabitable for human beings, that’ll be the endgame for evolution’s experiment in giving us brains that are bigger than they absolutely needed to be.

Perhaps because it is not as big of a threat as you perceive it to be.

 

[Zaha Torte]

If you're talking about taking measures to protect life and property, you're already in the street in this analogy.

My not running into the street is the measure I took to protect myself.

 

[Bradskii]

Your original argument was that climate change had to be an imminent threat because all these countries decided that it was.

I was pointing out that there has been world wide consensus in signing the Paris Accord. And that fact that every country is doing something about the problem shows that everyone agrees that there is a threat. Complaining that the Accord didn't force anyone to take specific measures is having something of an each way bet because I'm certain you'd have complained if they did.

Do you know what the main problem is? People who insist that there is no problem.

 

[Zaha Torte]

I was pointing out that there has been world wide consensus in signing the Paris Accord. And that fact that every country is doing something about the problem shows that everyone agrees that there is a threat. Complaining that the Accord didn't force anyone to take specific measures is having something of an each way bet because I'm certain you'd have complained if they did.

Do you know what the main problem is? People who insist that there is no problem.

And here I thought it was supposed to be the carbon.

 

[Bradskii]

I don't consider cars in the street a threat because I don't stand in the street.

Is that line of thinking going to be used as an argument? 'It's not affecting me, therefore it's not a threat'.

Seriously?

And here I thought it was supposed to be the carbon.

From your posts so far it I don't think that you've put enough thought into it to know.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Is that line of thinking going to be used as an argument? 'It's not affecting me, therefore it's not a threat'.

Seriously?

More if it is detectable, measurable and somewhat predictable - you can prepare for anything - making it not a threat.

From your posts so far it I don't think that you've put enough thought into it to know.

Your earlier response is proof positive for me that this entire climate change conversation is a tool of Satan to divide us.

So many people who are willing to destroy our economy and kill millions of people to maybe lower the global temperature a tenth of a degree in a hundred years.

 

[Hans Blaster]

What do you propose be done?

The regular thing -- emit less CO2. It's not real difficult to understand.

 

[Zaha Torte]

The regular thing -- emit less CO2. It's not real difficult to understand.

And that will prevent the climate from changing?