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 minutes ago.
by Kendall78
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

So Republican Christine Todd Whitman says, "We have a scientific consensus around this issue."

and 63% of Republicans back Federal action to limit greenhouse gases.

I'm thankful for the Republican pragmatists who are now speaking out. It's time for us "silent majority" Republicans to take back our party from the noisy crowd that gets all the press coverage.

Posted 75 days ago.

harryanderson

And, as previously mentioned, most Americans, even 63% of Republicans, according to a recent Washington Post-ABC News poll, The poll asked, "...think the federal government should limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming."

w ww.washingtonpost.c om/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_346.xml

Posted 75 days ago.

harryanderson

"Top environmental regulators for four Republican presidents told Congress on Wednesday what many Republican lawmakers won't: Action is needed on global warming."

w ww.usatoday.c om/story/news/nation/2014/06/18/gop-epa-congress-climate/10765747/

"'We have a scientific consensus around this issue. We also need a political consensus,' said Christine Todd Whitman, the former New Jersey Governor and first EPA administrator under President George W. Bush, who resigned her post after disagreeing with the White House's direction on pollution rules."

Posted 75 days ago.

harryanderson

I predict this popular support for the new rules will erode under the propaganda campaign already unleashed by the Counter Climate Change Movement.

Sen. Paul has called the new rule "illegal."

Sen. McConnell has called it "an end run around Congress."

Rep, David McKinley, in his press release, spoke of Obama "circumvent(ing) Congress."

Of course they misspeak, since the Supreme Court ruled on the legality of this move before Obama even became President. The SC said the EPA has the authority under the Clean Air Act.

The propaganda and lies are already flying. If past is prelude, they will change public perception,

But they can't change the laws of physics. That's why Heartland honcho Joe Bast may boast of winning the policy and opinion debates, but lament being frustrated by the scientific debate.

Posted 90 days ago.

harryanderson

Here's something interesting: Monday, as the EPA announced a new plan to limit CO2 emissions from coal-fired power plants, a new Washington Post-ABC poll was published,

The poll asked, "Do you think the federal government should or should not limit the release of greenhouse gases from existing power plants in an effort to reduce global warming?"

70% of all respondants, and even 63% of Republicans, answered that the Feds should.

w ww.washingtonpost.c om/page/2010-2019/WashingtonPost/2014/06/02/National-Politics/Polling/release_346.xml

Only 31% of Republicans said they shouldn't, More than twice as many Republicans support this action as oppose it.

Posted 90 days ago.

Kendall78

More deflection from Tired...how shocking.

Posted 95 days ago.

harryanderson

Me, too. The weekend after a holiday is my favorite. Have a good time, and we'll see you when you come back out to play.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

At any rate, I have a lovely weekend planned in this great warm weather, so until next time.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

How can one believe that a consensus, one which does not exist despite you deceit, is solo important, and then ignore a greater consensus which does exist. One cannot understand the climate, tree ring data or ice cores and not know how old the earth is.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

Exposing hypocrisy is fun, not frustrating.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

No it's not a great source of frustration to me, setting a couple of people straight on a unread forum is just a hobby and not one of any import.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

You can keep trying to distort facts b it that won't prove a thing. Why won't you defend your antiscience beliefs of the age of the earth? 99.9% of science disagrees with you, why be a denier?

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

I see you choose to ignore the 99.9% that disagree with you Harry. Your anti science beliefs are relevant to the understanding of history.

Posted 95 days ago.

harryanderson

But I guess you gotta do something desperate when you can't change your mind and less than 3/4 of one percent of the 12,000 papers under consideration agree with you.

In other words, when the scientific debate over global warming is of enormous frustration to you, you gotta change the subject to a scientific debate over creation.

Posted 95 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly,'Kendall. Tiredofit repeats this pattern over and over. When his arguments come into question, he tries to change the subject.

Posted 95 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly,'Kendall. Tiredofit repeats this pattern over and over. When his arguments come into question, he tries to change the subject.

Posted 95 days ago.

Kendall78

"So as you avoid the obvious hypocrisy in your argument,"

I think he is trying to avoid the obvious attempt by you at deflection.

Posted 95 days ago.

Kendall78

"as we all pick and choose whats "science" we believe.."

The problem with this is that you don't give science much at all. You give opinions of other and appeal to authority.

Posted 95 days ago.

Kendall78

"When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW"

Actually, they took in the papers that gave a reason in their research for Global Warming. They didn't just take in the ones that were just AGW.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

Btw, it was YOU who brought your religion to this forum and made it fair game

Posted 95 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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