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
3 days 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

"There will be no raw data from this supposed NASSA mission"

You doubt NASA when they said they sent a satellite up?

"Just like he IPCC hides its raw data so shall this be"

I am certain that under the freedom of information Act, if you want to see the data you can. Try and find out and report back to us.

"Have you ever worked a Govt job?"

Again...why is this relevant?

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

There will be no raw data from this supposed NASSA mission, only interpretation. Just like he IPCC hides its raw data so shall this be

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Have you ever worked a Govt job>?

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

I could only be 100 percent anything, but I digress

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Myth, 110% is not possible, but math was never your strong point.

Posted 24 days ago.

Kendall78

"And when a person's opinion is that biased you'll never be able to convince them otherwise."

I have no desire to change his mind. I just like to get his opinions written down so when he is proven wrong, he cannot deny it later.

Posted 24 days ago.

Kendall78

"Have you ever worked a Govt job?"

Why is that relevant to all this?

Posted 24 days ago.

mythravere

Like I have said before. You can lay every single fact on the table. Tiredofit and his ilk will just deny all of it.

Posted 24 days ago.

mythravere

And when a person's opinion is that biased you'll never be able to convince them otherwise.

Posted 24 days ago.

mythravere

The only thing Tiredofit will accept as fact on this issue is information that shows that scientists are lying about it and that its all a hoax.

He is diametrically opposed to this issue.

He is 110% biased against mans role in changing our climate.

Nothing can convince him that it is real.

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Have you ever worked a Govt job?

Posted 24 days ago.

Kendall78

"SO its sorta important."

I'm not saying it's not noteworthy or anything. But unless you actually have real examples where NOAA has done these theoretical exagerrations...you have nothing.

"There is NO WAY that the data will say.."

All I care to see from that satellite is information on whether CO2 effects the way our atmosphere absorbs the energy from the Sun. And whether yes or no, that the public accept the findings. Denial in the face of hard facts (no matter the side of the argument) is pitiful.

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

There is NO WAY that the data will say, cut our budget, nothing to see here. LOL

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

When a Govt official admits its ok to lie for more funding I find that important you would rather be obtuse.

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yes its opinion, but its the opinion of a manager of a govt agency that will tell you what the data says. SO its sorta important

Posted 24 days ago.

Kendall78

What Monica Kopacz had to say in the past has nothing to do with this satellite or even man made global warming really.

Unless you can clearly point out where NOAA or other major agencies have willfully lied with information...her statement is nothing but opinion.

Posted 24 days ago.

Kendall78

"I don't think we can call this unbiased"

Sooo.that's a no from you. To be more precise...no information from any satellite will be accepted by you as fact. Even if the infor gathered supports your position. Is this true?

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

That's NOAA climate project manager Monica Kopacx. A GOVT employee. SO please forgive my incredulity.

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets not forget Monica Kopacz NOAA climIt is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.ate project managers words.,,,,,

Posted 24 days ago.

Tiredofit

Hmmmm a govt agency like NOAA whos very funding is based on results. I don't think we can call this unbiased. Its not the data, rather who is disseminating and interpreting the data

Posted 24 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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