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
2 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

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 140 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 140 days ago.

mythravere

Oh yea!

Math Joke!

Posted 140 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 140 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 140 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 140 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 140 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 140 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 141 days ago.

Kendall78

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

Posted 141 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 141 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 141 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 141 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 141 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 141 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 141 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 141 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 141 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yep that's a first class organization that is.

Posted 141 days ago.

Tiredofit

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

More recently, UCS pulled a partisan, election-year stunt in 2004 aimed at the Bush Administration. The group rounded up 60 scientists to sign a statement complaining that “the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies; manipulating the underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions.”

Posted 141 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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