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
24 minutes 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

I see things haven't changed too much the last few days here. Tired still isn't changing anyone's mind or even representing his own mind that well.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

And you revert to the same thing every time "the scientific debate is of enormous frustration" You always go to the ad hominem.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, I don't have to defend a claim I didn't make. My claim involved CO2 being a greenhouse gas. Nothing else.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Which of his judgments do you believe?

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth pegged you, and you've just proved it again.

And you like to question his intelligence.

That's rich.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

And I proved myth's point. You won't accept any science that contradicts your political views. Myth saw through you.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

And no, I don't accept all of Dr. Lindzen's views. Some are too controversial. But among climate scientists, there is no controversy about whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. I don't know of any climate scientist who denies that CO2 is a greenhouse gas.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Actually, Tiredofit, I proved what I set out to prove--that you wouldn't accept the word of any climate scientists, not even the skeptical ones. Of course, that was obvious, since you said "it's not a scientific discussion."

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Quite, myth.

You were certainly right when you said he would never accept proof. He asked and I provided. He would neither accept nor reject it.

I do think you're smart about this: You're smart enough to weigh evidence before you make a decision.

And that makes you a lot smarter than a lot of others. Some won't even weigh the evidence they asked for.

Posted 43 days ago.

mythravere

Harry you said sometimes I am not smart. Thats fine. But you do realize that tiredofit will never give you a straight answer on anything.

He'll just move the goal posts.

So just saying. You might want to use the advice you gave me.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm confused. You said, "No, Harry." Does that mean you don't believe Dr. Lindzen is right when he says CO2 is a greenhouse gas?

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

So you do agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Should I go on to the next piece of evidence?

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you address the evidence you asked for?

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

I didn't ask you if you thought he believed. I asked you if you accepted his word that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Yes or no?

Posted 43 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll, Tiredbrain = Troll,

Posted 43 days ago.

Ohwiseone

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 All I advocate is there IS research that says man has and will have a role in climate change !

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

If you mean that it's too easy for you to run away from the issue at hand, I agree.

Yes or no. Is Co2 a greenhouse gas?

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

But I didn't ask for evidence. You did. Let's agree on the basic science first, then we'll proceed to the subtleties.

Posted 43 days ago.

harryanderson

You asked me to present evidence, and I did. Stop trying to change the subject.

Posted 43 days ago.

mythravere

" However, it is this heat transport that plays a major role in natural internal variability of climate, and the IPCC assertions that observed warming can be attributed to man depend crucially on their assertion that these models accurately simulate natural internal variability."

The thing about these models is that I get the sense that its hard to predict in real time what the climate is going to do in the near term.

We've already seen them get this wrong with hurricane prediction.

Posted 43 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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