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
13 hours 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

Kendall78

I'll be back later. Have a nice evening.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

I never once said it was valid now did I?

You asked about infared radiation and quoted from James R. Barrante, Ph.D. From the same article by him, I answered you truthfully and you won't admit you are wrong.

In response, I asked you a straight forward question, "Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behavior?" But you have not answered it yet.

I answered your question, now show some decency and answer mine.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Wow...you just can't admit it when you are wrong can you?

I answered the question and the answer is yes and I quote, "near infrared, does pass through glass."

Why do you not accept information from the very article you copied from?

Now please answer my question, Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behavior?

Yes or No.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"with the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2."

Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behvior?

Yes or No.

I already answered your question from the very article you were using. Now answer my question.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"with the greenhouse gas behavior of CO2."

Do you agree that CO2 has greenhouse gas behvior?

Yes or No.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"Now you arr showing your ignorance.."

Actually, I was quoting from the very article you were using but didn't cite...thus showing your ignorance on the very article itself. Read it again before you comment.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Also, if you read the entire article you might have seen this, "As a final reminder, infrared radiation is a form of light, not heat."

Read the whole article before you decide to copy/paste and citations don't hurt either because it was very simple to tell that you didn't write that stuff.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

I do know what you mean though by thermal radiation and glass though. Oddly enough, Myth Busters tackled this a little when they were doing an episode about beating securrity alarms. The way one could beat the basic thermal scan was with a large sheet of glass between the person and the scanner. Not very practical but it worked.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

If you were intellectually honest you would have read the whole thing which includes, "...near infrared, does pass through glass."

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"ht tps://climaterx.wordpress.c om/tag/infrared-light-and-glass"

You didn't understand a single thing in that copy/paste you put up there did you?

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Do you have a point in making that list of heat?

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"have you tried it?"

I don't require that experiment to understand the science behind the effects of CO2 on climate change. If I didn't, perhaps I would need to do the experiment.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Read this: w w w.skepticalscience.c om/co2-temperature-correlation.h t m

What problems do you have with their findings and ideas.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

So instead of trying it, you dismiss it and want others to do it for you?

To what end? Even if someone did it for you, you wouldn't accept the results unless they go into your belief system.

Just admit that you are not open to ideas that do not revolve around your beliefs.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

Sounds interesting. I'll check that out. Thanks.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Too true. A little off topic but have you ever ventured to The Nizkor Project? It covers the history of Holocaust denial, debates tactics and things of that nature. Pretty interesting.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

I do agree that it's impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who refuses to consider valid evidence.

Nevertheless, interacting with such people in public is useful for showing the the mental and emotional processes that lead to different points of view. Like the Bible says, "Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

That is: Demonstrable evidence has been presented, and Tiredofit refuses to be swayed by it.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

I wouldn't say anybody has their head in the sand. I'm just saying scientists have presented demonstrable evidence, and it refuses to sway Tiredofit.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

Out of everything Tired posted, there was only one thing worth quoting out of all the blabber, ad hominems and attempts to look intelligent;

"I don't know"

Yes Tired, we know you do not know. You have no inkling of why it's happening and you are quite comfy cozy in your ignorance.

@Harry- kind of hard to have a rational discussion with a person whose head is in the sand isn't it?

Posted 146 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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