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 days 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

mythravere

All that study proves is that the positions on science that the Tea Party types hold are born from the guidance issued forth by their corporate handlers.

If they comprehend science so well then why do they reject its findings so readily.

I've said it before and this shows it full well that facts mean nothing to them.

Posted 120 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit

You’re not telling the truth when you say I’ve called people anti-science. You know that’s not the truth because we’ve been over this ground before. I challenged you to show where I called any INDIVIDUAL anti-science, as opposed to STATEMENTS and CAMPAIGNS. You couldn’t name a single instance.

And now you repeat your falsehood. You’re using a classic technique of liars: repeat the lie over and over, and hope people will believe it

Posted 120 days ago.

It is not at all hard to find, Kendall. Greta and Meghan Kelly both gave details last night. Both are reputable lawyers. Here you are.Bing has other choices, I did not try google.

h ttp://w ww.examiner.c om/article/taxpayers-spend-400k-to-study-the-cognitive-abilities-of-the-tea-party

Posted 120 days ago.

Tiredofit

I don't care what anyone believes Kendall but as I said, when you call people who are skeptical about climate science, anti science (see title of thread) and also deniers( a derogatory term) you really should be consistent in your approach. Then to reject all of anthropology, geology etc due to blind faith stinks of hypocrisy. Some of the historical data that climate modeling relies on also disproves the biblical view of the age of the earth????.. so pick and choose.

Posted 120 days ago.

Tiredofit

No Kendall, but you don't call skeptics anti science deniers if you also reject scientific proof when it suits a person. It's called hypocrisy.

Posted 120 days ago.

Kendall78

Didn't find any reputable study to back your claim. Could you please give a proper citation.

Posted 120 days ago.

Government $400,000 study shows tea partiers are higher in scientific understanding. They sure got fooled. Don't watch for this news on your alphabet soup channels. Either google or look at Fox.

Posted 121 days ago.

Kendall78

Sort off the topic but is there some unspoken rule that you either have to accept everything science says or absolutely none of it?

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

Tell us Harry why scientists have the origins of mankind so wrong and why you reject those theories? Fraud

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

No one cares what a fraudulent WV republican thinks.

Posted 121 days ago.

harryanderson

“Oh Kendall take a hard look at the UN and IPCC see what they have to gain.”

I did take a hard look at the IPCC. It claims “It reviews and assesses the most recent scientific, technical and socio-economic information produced worldwide relevant to the understanding of climate change.”

I believe that’s what they have to gain—to assess the latest data and provide a knowledge base for policymakers of all political persuasions.

I’ve seen no credible evidence that the IPCC was set up to rob us of our freedoms, as some folks have suggested.

Posted 121 days ago.

harryanderson

When discussing what climate is normal , it’s useful to consider the past record. A study this year found “Surface temperature reconstructions of the past 1500 years suggest that recent warming is unprecedented in that time.”

****sciencemag.or g/content/339/6124/1198.abstract So, if the warming is unprecedented over the last 1500 years, it’s safe to say the recent warming isn’t “normal.” Since the climate is warming at an abnormal pace, we should be thinking of how we’re going to adapt to it.

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

Oh Kendall take a hard look at the UN and IPCC see what they have to gain

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

Well hear what ihave said, define normal, follow the money and understand your information may be biased

Posted 121 days ago.

Kendall78

I'm too much of a redhead to ever consider too warm as good ;)

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

So KENDALL, lets embrace the warming trend, it will be good for mankind.

Posted 121 days ago.

Kendall78

If by "warm" you include such things as the depleted ozone layer...I will disagree it is good.

Posted 121 days ago.

harryanderson

As to the suggestion that there is no proof rising CO2 levels are warming the earth.

The over 600 scientists who contributed to the IPCC 5th assessment disagree. The assessment concluded that the human influence on global warming is

“unequivocal.”

Posted 121 days ago.

Kendall78

Normal is based on averages. As the graphs in this article shows, the last few decades have been anything but on average and therefor not normal. (h t t p://w w w.vancouverobserver.c o m/blogs/climatesnapshot/we-just-experienced-4000-years-global-warming-two-decades)

Posted 121 days ago.

Tiredofit

Couldn't care less what you have to say Harry

Posted 121 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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