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
seconds ago.
by Tiredofit
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 try to get my information from neutral sources that appeal to reason, not emotion.

Posted 9 days ago.

mythravere

And you are saying Tiredofit that the real..the true science is on your side.

LOL!

But their funding? It leads to no conflict of interest at all? LOL!

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

I like breathing clean air.

Posted 9 days ago.

mythravere

A neutral source is the actual scientists.

But who am I kidding you don't even trust the scientists. Which is funny because if what you say is true and there has been no warming a person would have to rely on scientists to show them that. Which is even funnier because in your case I am guessing that if they stated that you would then somehow look the other way and not question their funding.

LOL!

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

As we lower our use of fossil fuels, we'll breathe in less of the smog and soot they cause.

That's a good thing.

Posted 9 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Why wont you answer ? Are you ashamed ?? Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ????This is proof by your silence that your full of crap !

Posted 9 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Here is the research you deny exists ! !!! research that is not funded by our government ! ~~~~The dependence on fossil fuel energy sources since the industrial revolution has undoubtedly shaped economic prosperity for the developed world. However, an unfortunate by-product of fossil fuel combustion is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), an important greenhouse gas that is known to influence long-term climatic variations through its ability to absorb infra-red radiation.

Human emissions of CO2 have resulted in atmospheric levels higher than any period over the last 20 million years. The continued emission of CO2 will lead to widespread climate change related impacts. ~~Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) UNSW Australia, Sydney NSW 2052 Australia

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

You cited WIKI as a reliable source, Wikipedia Propaganda Techniques page:

Bandwagon

Bandwagon and “inevitable-victory” appeals attempt to persuade the target audience to join in and take the course of action that “everyone else is taking.”

Inevitable victory: invites those not already on the bandwagon to join those already on the road to certain victory. Those already or at least partially on the bandwagon are reassured that staying aboard is their best course of action. (e.g., “The debate is over. 97% of scientist agree”)”

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

When you use dishonest numbers like the 97% BS you know you are not interested in Rational debate, you are being dishonest.

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

Curious MYTH what do you consider a neutral source >>??

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

A religion cannot be debated and this one is for the ignorant and fearful

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

There is no rational debate, YOU BELIEVE YOUR RELIGION WITHOUT PROOF.

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

Rational debate huh? LOL Harry you fearful ignorant one, YOU claim the earth has, (had is more accurtate) at an unprecedented rate. When asked what the rate was 12000 years ago, you cannot answer. I asked how proxies were made and if they were accurate you likewise say take it up with the author, HARDLY PROOF

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

So, from your "Neutral" sources lol show me proof that Mans Production of CO2 is causing the global warming.

Posted 9 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO, now you must deem the source neutral or left before considering the information>? Yea that's open minded.

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 9 days ago.

mythravere

Neutral sources will be the only proof that is considered.

You've dumped a heck of a lot of "proof" from rightwing sources on here.

Sorry but thats just not gonna cut it.

And more importantly its easy to ascertain the manner in which you conducted your "research". You just hopped around copy and pasting from whatever you thought had something to say that supports your cause.

Posted 9 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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