Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 
Latest Post:
Started By:
Rank:
Category
3 hours ago.
by Ohwiseone
harryanderson
#1

Thankfully, the anti-science propaganda campaign surrounding man-made climate change seems to have lost some of its effect.

Are you seeing storm clouds on the horizon? Two recent studies suggest that the latest anti-science campaign is following its forerunners--the propaganda campaigns attempting to refute science that tobacco causes cancer, that CFC's caused the hole in the ozone layer, and so on—into oblivion. Global warming denial seems to have climbed to a peak in 2010, and global warming acceptance is now climbing. This bodes well for rational public policy.

 
 

Member Comments

harryanderson

I don't care if you continue to call me names. I base my self-worth on my relationship with God, not with you.

You should care, however, since your words reveal your character.

As Jesus said, "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

And you may call me names if you like. It was you who said you were "done with childish insults."

As for me, I can't remember posting any childish insults on here. At least not knowingly.

I'm smart enough to realize we're all on the same team.

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, Tiredofit. I again apologize for using the terms "anti-science" and "denier," even though I only used it in reference to tactics, and not people.

I just never imagined anyone would be so thin-skinned as to keep bringing it up, even after multiple apologies.

Posted 93 days ago.

Kendall78

"Ever notice the anger when it all comes unraveled"

Yes, you start treating the comment board like a twitter page when you are being shown to be incorrect in your assumptions.

Reasonable suggestions are offered to you about citation of information and how you could present your point better or even how you are wrong. But you go into denial mode and get all frustrated.

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

Again you revert to your default tactic--the childish insult you recently said you were "done with."

Posted 93 days ago.

Kendall78

"Didn't see you chide your little buddy."

I don't remember him being a hypocrite like you. You said you were done with childish insults but continue to say them. Are you trying to make him behave in a manner that you won't? Bad form dear fellow.

"Anyway you are going with what scientists THINK now despite your reliance on peer reviewed lies."

Hmm, you have yet to show that any of the peer reviewed articles offered by Harry or others had any lies in them. Keep trying if you think you are correct.

Posted 93 days ago.

Kendall78

"Never said it did Kendall,"

It was in your post. Take responsibility for what you copy/paste or quit doing it.

Also, if you have a point to make...it is up to you to provide the evidence and not tell others to just read an article.

Try using your copy/paste powers and cite some information in a proper manner. It would do you some good.

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

"You guys don't have a thing to prove your religion of global warming hysteria."

Statements like that have poisoned this debate.

I didn't pay much attention to global warming until I encountered folks like you who make these statements and call people who disagree with them names like Marxists, hoaxes, frauds, leftists, and the like.

So I started investigating, and I found the preponderance of scientific evidence is against you.

Just look at the emotionally-charged language you use. You who recently said you were "done with childish insults."

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Please read the articles. They admit the surface temperatures aren't warming, and show where the heat may be going.

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

I certainly hope Curry and others, like Lubos Motl, who doubt the ocean will warm enough to cause problems, are correct.

Motl wrote, "So I think that the ocean heat data are pretty cool, convincing, and show a rather uniformly increasing total heat. But the same data also seem to imply that the climate sensitivity is well below one Celsius degree per CO2 doubling."

htt p://motls.blogspot.c om/2013/09/ocean-heat-content-relentless-but.html

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

Climate scientists think the super El Niño of 1997-1998 pumped a lot of heat out of the Pacific. The colder water is absorbing much more heat. Most scientists claim the heat will re-emerge. A few, like Judith Curry, admit the oceans are absorbing a lot of heat but question whether it will cause future problems.

For a good clear discussion of this see

w ww.nature.c om/news/climate-change-the-case-of-the-missing-heat-1.14525

Posted 93 days ago.

harryanderson

Right, Kendall. The US is a fraction of the world's land mass, and is not representative of the world.

Climate scientists have been looking for the missing heat. They focused in on three things, the sun's variability, reflective aerosols from Chinese industrialization, and the ocean.

Current thinking is that the Equatorial Pacific may be responsible for absorbing as much as 90% of the excess heat, which may explain why land surface temperatures have risen but little.

Posted 93 days ago.

Kendall78

"Government Data Show U.S. in Decade-Long Cooling"

Since when did US=Global?

Posted 93 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- I noticed that Tired hasn't answered your question about how it's bias. He hasn't even tried.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

You shouldn't get so worked up, Tiredofit. It's bad for the heart.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit, you wrote: "Counter climate????? Lol. So there are people that have an alternative climate????? Or want the climate to stop?"

You know something, Tiredofit? If you took care to read what I wrote before you start mocking what I write, you wouldn't look so foolish.

I wrote: " Did you notice the well-known figure in the counter climate change movement to whom the article referred?" See the word "change"?

You say you "don't trust a thing they print." I don't wonder, if you can't read what they print any better than that.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

And did you note what that figure said about Goddard's claim that the data had been "fudged"?

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

How is the article biased, Tiredofit. Did you notice the well-known figure in the counter climate change movement to whom the article referred?

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

"I read it and know that the bias is there"

Sounds like a classic case of truthiness.

Posted 95 days ago.

Politifact is, in reality, Tampa Bay Times politipinion. Yes, I invented a new word.

Posted 95 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or