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
6 days ago.
by mythravere
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

Kendall78

Going beyond Tired's fixation with places where little kids are, exactly what do you want more? Factual information or the journalistic version of panem et circenses?

Of course the unwashed masses likes the entertainment news that has a lot of yelling and flashes of women's legs than borning ol facts. Doesn't mean they are more intelligent or up to speed on what is important in the world.

Posted 114 days ago.

Kendall78

"I cannot prove that co2 is not warming the planet but you cannot prove it is. Cannot prove a negative."

You could prove what is warming the planet if not mankind. Going with the old "proving the negative" excuse is weak. Sure one cannot prove a negative but you can prove the contrary position.

If the increase of CO2 put into the atmosphere is not the cause for global warming, what is it then Tired and why do you think that way?

Posted 114 days ago.

Tiredofit

Go back to you chemtrail studies or meet your buddy kendall at chucky cheese, harry won't be able to travel that far sadly. Just won't be the same without shemp.

Posted 114 days ago.

Tiredofit

Well myth you are right. I cannot prove that co2 is not warming the planet but you cannot prove it is. Cannot prove a negative. The burden of proof is on those that advocate against the burning of fossil fuels, cow f,arts etc one which they have utterly (cow pun) failed to meet. You can call people all the names you wish and it won't change that immutable fact.

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

Oh yea!

Math Joke!

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

When the only facts that you will consider are the ones that only fit in and confirm your worldview...that makes you a dishonest person.

Now I am sure you will fling that accusation back at me.

So I say with all honesty that now is the time to make your case.

Prove you are right!

Oh wait you don't have to do you?

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

I found a video making statements of having proof that airlines were spray chemicals.

In the video the person pointed to a part of an airplane as being the apparatus for the spraying.

Well I did some digging and found out that the part in question was a wing flap hinge fairing.

I posted a comment stating what it really was.

The youtube channel cowardly had the comments set up for moderation prior to posting. So I had to wait for it to be posted.

It never was posted. So that tells me that they like you can't stand any contradictory details that goes against the position they hold on the issue at hand.

A truthful fact was rejected.

To put the cherry on top they banned me from trying to make comments on their channel every again.

Heaven forbid anything would cause them to question their own beliefs.

They like you live in their own little self confirming world.

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

I got a funny story about dealing with a conspiracy nut on Youtube that though short and sweet it pretty much describes your type.

Because you are straight up in the same group as the conspiracy loons.

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! Typical cowardly deflection.

No where did I say that I believed in Chemtrails. You stating that is just another point showing your dishonesty.

Posted 114 days ago.

Tiredofit

Doesnt suprise me you believe in chemtrails Bigfoot, ( who I will protect you from for a fee ), mothman and Santa Claus.

Posted 114 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit do want to see what its like to argue with yourself?

Here's what you do.

Get a Youtube account or go onto forums etc where Chemtrails are mentioned.

Research what they are talking about. Misidentifying components of airliners as being used for spraying chemicals and be sure to mention the "chemtrails" are actually contrails from the hot exhaust mixing with cold air etc.

You will see rather quickly that you can not rationalize with them and the whirlwind that is their circuitous logic is nigh impenetrable.

Doing that will be like looking in the mirror!

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

Ah, I see you are referencing your 1980's roots again.

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

Poor Tired, have you utterly gave up on having mature conversations?

You can't back up barely anything you talk about on here and you don't have the good sense to learn to keep quite around your superiors.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

WHere is shem, we only have two here and you need three for a quorum.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

Hey Kendall, meet me by the ski ball ****

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

"shall we talk about your rejection of scientific fact"

The topic is about Global Warming, I don't recall Harry rejecting any science involving it.

Tired, do you have proof that Harry has rejected science involving global warming? Think slowly on this since the topic is global warming. Bait and switches don not apply here.

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

How shocking, another ad hominem attack by Tired.

Instead of showing that the info from UCS is incorrect for Harry, he attacks Harry.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry the fraud, shall we talk about your rejection of scientific fact????? A socialist extremist organizations bears no rebuttal. Any fool, other than you, can see it.

Posted 115 days ago.

harryanderson

You're going after the messenger and ignoring the message. That's called an ad hominem attack.

You demonstrate, Tiredofit, that you're unable to refute the UCS's study or methodology.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT — the original “union” — sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century “hate-America left”); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: “We want capitalism to come to an end.”

Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States’ relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War — a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

Posted 115 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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