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
93 days ago.
by slinky
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

The big problem with this issue is that well monied interests cast a significant amount of doubt on this issue.

Thats unfortunate because of people like tiredofit.

People like Tiredofit have taken that doubt and cocooned themselves in it and refuse to come out.

And I think it should be said that the doubt thats been put out there. Is totally unfounded.

Posted 518 days ago.

mythravere

And as far as the "proof" you did "provide" its one tiny controversial subject.

As such there are still large amounts of evidence supporting mans role in causing an uptick in our planet's temperature.

All you did was go after the low hanging fruit.

I expected as much.

Posted 518 days ago.

mythravere

I will be specific now.

You say man has no role in causing climate change therefore that leads one to assume that you believe its a natural phenomenon.

Ok provide proof of that position. But I must add for the record that you go back and forth between saying that warming isn't due to man and say that there hasn't been any warming at all.

Thats a glaring inconsistency on your part.

Posted 518 days ago.

mythravere

I hate to inform you of this but you didn't provide any proof of anything.

You took one issue that has nothing to do with your position and absolutely nothing to do with the information I requested and floated that as your proof.

You even plagiarized it! OMG LOL!

Copy and pasting will be disregarded.

Posted 518 days ago.

mythravere

"SO after dealing with all the morons in the room does ANYONE ELSE wish to provide PROOF that man is causing a change in the climate?"

Man you really showed your arrogance with post. Good job pal!

Posted 518 days ago.

mythravere

I don't reject the existence of god out of hand.

There just isn't any kind of proof to support the existence of any ones god at all.

The only other sentient beings we know are ourselves.

And in case you haven't disregarded that science too. Astronomy tells us the universe is quite large and the potential for other sentient beings who might quite possibly be older than us is highly likely.

Religion is nothing more than a security blanket for the ignorant and fearful.

But now onto other things.

Posted 518 days ago.

Kendall78

"something that Kendall mocks"

Why do you lie so much? I never have mocked God. I've mocked you quite a bit but nothing sacrilegious about that.

Posted 518 days ago.

Kendall78

"you guys cannot point to a single provable fact that shows Man is causing a change in the climate."

There is a difference between cannot and will not. Your behavior on here is a leading reason why people will not provide proof. Your past behavior has shown everyone on here you are intellectually dishonest and very closed minded.

Posted 518 days ago.

Kendall78

"you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale."

Good point Harry.

Why are you more dependable on this topic than the experts Tired?

Posted 519 days ago.

Kendall78

"provide proof"

So..since a person doesn't provide proof to your standards (whatever those are), then you have concluded there is no proof? Wow...what an ego.

Posted 519 days ago.

Kendall78

"I knew you'd reject the 43 papers without looking at them."

It shouldn't surprise anyone that he did. No real point in referencing them to him anyway, he wouldn't begin to understand them.

Posted 519 days ago.

Kendall78

"is that not open to anyone to author???"

Go down to the bottom of the pages and you'll see something unfamiliar to you...citations. You could learn a lot there Tired.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

But why argue with me about the accuracy of Mann's hockey stick? Take it up with him and the many other scientists I've cited.

Basically, you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

Well. You yourself said the hockey stick was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not using the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

"A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous."

grammar.about.c om/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

The key word here is "famous." I'm citing them for their EXPERTISE, not their fame.

But I apply a standard beyond that. The source should not be cited if it's considered immune from criticism. That's why I cite peer-reviewed stuff; it's been criticized by other experts.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

"I want to see proof that CO2 is causing the earth to warm"

Like I said, look in the scientific literature.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

Look in the papers for the proof. Take it up with the scientists. I've moved on.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

I believe the experts over an anonymous internet poster.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

Take it up with Mann. I've moved on.

Posted 519 days ago.

harryanderson

"OK but has it been proven by scientific methods?"

Read the 43 papers and take it up with their authors, if you like.

Posted 519 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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