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
1 hour 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

harryanderson

The personal attack is all you have, and you go back to it again and again.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

"But you cannot, Larry Moe, Curly and SHemp you all fail and it frustrates you"

Why must you always revert to the name-calling? Could it be because, like Joe Bast said, "The scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration" to you?

Kendall and I cite a climate scientist, and you come back with some drivel about the Three Stooges.

You still haven't explained why you should "not necessarily" be held liable for causing someone breathing problems.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

So, you see,

Pointing to the scientific debate only increases his frustration. He can't even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse, which was proven back in 1896 and is accepted even by the 3% of climate science who don't think CO2 poses significant risks. Even Roy Spencer and Judith Curry admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They disagree on the severity of its impact.

But Tiredofit hasn't even admitted that its a greenhouse gas.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit must undermine climate science because, like his hero Joe Bast says, "The scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

And of course Tiredofit won't accept the testimony of climate scientists. He can't because he can't lose. And he has lost the scientific debate.

Like Joe Bast, the Heartland Institute boss, said, "We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well. But the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth and Kendall,

You are 100% correct. Tiredofit will never accept the testimony of climate scientists unless they agree with his political and cultural worldview. He's made that clear. After all, he has said that it's a political debate, not a scientific debate.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

And if anonymous internet posters want to be considered more credible than the world's most-published experts, then let those posters list their credentials. What is their academic background? What have they published, and where?

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

The most-published and most-peer-reviewed climate scientists are the most credible experts out there, and several studies have shown that 97% of them accept the consensus opinion.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

According to this scientist, the heat is going into the oceans.

I still say climate scientists have more credibility than others on this subject, and I don't believe they lie to get government funding, and I don't believe all these climate scientists are twisting their findings to institute some kind of socialist government.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

Kendall posted a statement from someone with expertise on the subject. Not Charles Krauthammer, not John Cook, not an anonymous internet poster.

A scientist. Kendall posted, "'The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans,' said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO."

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit, I asked, "For example, if your activities cause someone to suffer breathing problems, should you be held liable?"

I understood you to answer, "Not necessarily."

Under what circumstances should you not be liable for causing someone else's breathing problems?

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

"By your logic, peanut growers would bear the medical costs of those with peanut allergies, dog owners for those with pet allergies."

Wrong. Peanut growers and dog owners don't CAUSE allergies.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

"But some profit more, like you."

Wherever did you get that idea? Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "vested interests."

In law, a "vested" interest is a right or title that can be conveyed to another.

I didn't say I profited more than others.

Posted 46 days ago.

harryanderson

"But some profit more, like you."

Wherever did you get that idea? Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "vested interests."

In law, a "vested" interest is a right or title that can be conveyed to another.

I didn't say I profited more than others.

Posted 46 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Tiredofit

Did I state anything that was untrue? Oh yeah !!! Either way you want it tirebrain ! If you were truly a "shop steward" your representation would have been grounds for dismissal and then theres the other side of it ! You're probably just another republican liar who claims to be a steward from a Canadian union and wouldn't know the truth if it bit it on the arse !

Posted 46 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit I bet you're just a cranky old man set in his ways thats so politicized you think a commie is around every corner.

Why do you even post about this issue. You not trying to change anyones mind? So why do it.

If you wanted to change minds then you'd have to back up what you say wouldn't you? But thats not how you roll?

Posted 46 days ago.

mythravere

The words of the scientists are neutral. Doesn't matter where those words are posted at.

Its not like you would even consider their veracity anyways.

Posted 46 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit you don't state anything. Thats part of your game plan. All you do is deny deny deny.

And those "pics" from what I could tell in just a quick search are photoshops. Meaning someone made it up. Who? I have no idea.

Posted 46 days ago.

Kendall78

"Cook is an activist and looks great in his Nazi uniform."

What does this have anything to do with climate change science and data?

Can you show that Cook's views are actually skewed or are you practicing the art of implication without facts again?

Posted 46 days ago.

Kendall78

(From the BBC) "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984."

"The WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin doesn't measure emissions from power station smokestacks but instead records how much of the warming gases remain in the atmosphere after the complex interactions that take place between the air, the land and the oceans."

""The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans," said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO."

Posted 46 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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