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
7 hours ago.
by Stillhere
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

mythravere

Surface temps of what. Water or the air?

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

I've never discussed climate changes causing harsher winters.

But now that you mention it. Do you know why it is doing that?

Changes in the jet stream. Which has seasonal tendencies. Last year it came farther south than normal hence polar vortex.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

I never said that. Reading comprehension?

Thats to what I was referring to.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

"By what phenomenon did the co2 say "hey warming land is boring, let's quit and go warm the oceans". Lol"

In the areas where the surface currents dive deep into the ocean to begin the next leg of their global circulation. The warm surface water is warming up the ocean farther down than it has done in the past. Water can hold more heat than air. And those currents are mixing in more and more warm surface water.

Not to mention the effect that a more and more ice free Arctic ocean is going to have on oceanic circulation.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofits tendency to call those who he "debates" with on socialists,warmists propagandists etc. Is a technique to link a person or idea with a negative symbol. The person who uses this technique hopes that the audience will reject the person or idea on the basis of the negative symbol,instead of looking at and hear what that person has to say and any evidence the provide to back up their position.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

"6. The lack of warming is a sign of warming."

Has anyone said there is a lack of warming? Especially in light of the discovery of deep oceanic warming.

Notice that in regards to climate change it is referred to as being GLOBAL. This means the whole planet. The oceans are as much a part of the climate as the atmosphere.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

"5. The lack of severe weather is a sign of global warming"

Again weather events that are seasonally uncharacteristic are a sign that changes are happening in our climate.

Hurricanes have certain criteria in order to form. For quite some time these seasonal weather events took every year as that had in years past with some variations. Climate change is disrupting the seasonal weather and wind patterns that allow hurricanes to form.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

"4. Weather is not CLIMATE, unless it supports us."

Another emotion laden unfounded attribution.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

3. Extreme weather is a sign of global warming"

Weather events that are seasonally uncharacteristic are a sign that changes are happening in our climate.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

2. Cooling is evidence of warming

No one said this. Just you making an unfounded attribution. Big surprise there.

Posted 64 days ago.

mythravere

"1. Money only corrupts those who disagree with Algore"

Funny that it matters in regards to scientific funding but you never dig to see who's funding the sites you frequent.

Posted 64 days ago.

harryanderson

Based on past experience, I predict you’ll use the shotgun approach next.

My posts revealed the absurdity of your demands for proof, so you’ll bury my posts under a bunch of short posts and plagiarizing someone else.

Posted 64 days ago.

harryanderson

“Another ‘true believer’ without a shred of PROOF just itching to empower Government.”

There you go again.

By calling me a “true believer,” you are using an ad hominem argument (attacking an opponent rather than his or her position).

By claiming I’m “just itching to empower Government” (sic), you are using the straw man argument (misrepresenting an opponent’s position to discredit her or him).

I figured you’d go there. Again.

Posted 64 days ago.

harryanderson

“To be proven, something needs to be demonstrable and repeatable.”

That’s absurd. If that were true, we could never prove something that could only happen once. Suppose Clyde killed Moira. According to your definition, we couldn’t prove it because Moira could not be killed again. Sure, you could have Clyde kill Truman, but contrarians like you could always argue that it wasn’t the same because Truman isn’t Moira.

You’d better stick to the childish insults, Tiredofit. It’s the only way you can win. If you step into the field of rational discourse, you lose every time.

Posted 65 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept scientific evidence?

Posted 65 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept the scientific evidence?

Posted 65 days ago.

harryanderson

And to make your case, you refer to Galileo observing evidence to prove something. Yet you refuse to observe the many pieces of evidence that have been offered to you.

So if you won’t consider the evidence, how can you prove something?

This is too rich.

Posted 65 days ago.

harryanderson

BINGO. Read what you’ve posted. You’ve admitted you won’t accept scientific evidence.

Here’s what you wrote: “Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. “

I knew that. Unlike myth, I’m good at math. I knew you’d have to come around to mathematical proof. You had no choice (except to change your mind, which you’re incapable of doing on this issue)

Since the climate is measurable and observable instead of abstract, climate change can’t be proven, according to you. Therefore, by your own definitions, you are demanding we do the impossible.

And that makes your position absurd.

Posted 65 days ago.

mythravere

"The statement 1+1=2 is a true statement and will always remain true because the definitions of 1 and 2 never change."

Yea but you aint one to acknowledge true statements. Like the ability of co2 to trap heat and that we have emitted probably trillions of tons of the stuff.

Posted 65 days ago.

mythravere

Hey Tiredofit.

"First the fluffer Munster says

"And by the way , you just proved my point , stewards are appointed by the union committee NOT ELECTED""

Whats a fluffer?

Maybe thats a different one. The one here is as pious as the pope.LOL!

Posted 65 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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