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
12 hours 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

"HOw can you trust the information if you know it may exaggerated to get attention and funding"

What information has been exaggerated?

What funding?

From whom?

Do you have any actual evidence specific to any of your claims? All you have given is vague notions without any substance.

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

Debunk 97 percent CHECK, Demonstrate Results for Funding CHECK, Deny the term DENIER CHECK, Well my work is done for a while thanks.

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

And what is exaggeration but a controlled lie? Or is it just a plain old lie>

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

Kendall78

"What's scary is that you don't seem to care,"

Care about what? HOw can you trust the information if you know it may exaggerated to get attention and funding>?

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

I mean how many times has Tiredofit used socialism as the reason for climate change being an issue?

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

It really in the grand scheme of things doesn't matter what that woman said the climatologists have to supposedly do to get their funding. We know that the world is warming up. We know that nature isn't the absolute reason for this warming. In truth they play off of each other.

Until its found out that the seeking of "funding" is the total reason for what is being said about climate change then you know which camp I am sticking with.

Deniers will deny till they turn blue in the face. Its not a question of facts for them. Its all about resisting the other political faction.

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

"It's the fact that she freely admits that climatologists lie to scare people and get funding."

Do they lie or do they hype up what they are saying about climate change.

More to the point how do we know that what she said is the truth?

Do they lie about that stuff?

If so where's the proof that they do?

Posted 180 days ago.

Kendall78

"What's scary is that you don't seem to care,"

Care about what? That people of power and wealth have influence in our world? That was a lesson I learned a long time ago. It's not really that shocking of a revelation.

"the ends must justify the means"

If you would study history, you would see that mentality is found in all types..liberals and conservatives alike.

"It's not whether I believe her or not."

Actually it does because this is an informal debate platform. Otherwise you are just being a lukewarm fence-rider.

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

What's scary is that you don't seem to care, the ends must justify the means for the lefty, say whatever you have to.

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

You are missing the entire point Kendall as usual. It's not whether I believe her or not. It's the fact that she freely admits that climatologists lie to scare people and get funding.

Posted 180 days ago.

Kendall78

Curious Tired, since you think politics influences scientists to support Global Warming as being real. You must also accept the opposite that there are political entities that support those who deny that global warming is happening. Would this be correct?

Posted 180 days ago.

Kendall78

"I would say she knows both politics and science better than anyone here."

So since you admit that she knows more than you do about science, you would agree with her stance on carbon being a pollutant that effects global warming..right?

The only other option is for you to say no and show that you are just a stubborn child when it comes to this topic.

Posted 180 days ago.

Kendall78

"but she freely admits to exaggerating for political action and funding."

Soooo...she is correct until you don't agree with her. Yeah that's a mature and openminded way to be.

Posted 180 days ago.

luvthesouth

it sounds like you folks need to take a break and enjoy some of these banging pancakes i just whipped up. you just can't beat breakfast for lunch! sorry for the interruption... enjoy your discussion.

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

.The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. (SCARE THEM)So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, (LIE) but in today’s world(Not Marxist yet), this is the only way to assure any political action(GOVT MANDATES) and thus more federal financing (GRAVYTRAIN)to reduce the scientific uncertainty.(propaganda campaign)

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

Do you suppose the climate program director at the federal agency NOAA is wrong, lying or a closet denier?

Posted 180 days ago.

Tiredofit

So Harry, when you return, please explain what tobbaco companies have to do with my assertion that climate scientists feel justified in lying to us to get our attention political action and more MONEY.

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

"This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirection" Tiredofit.

You mean you being asked specific questions and either flat out refusing to answer them or saying it is us who have to prove what we are saying while you don't and/or bringing up topics like the past one that has little weight on this issue in the bigger picture.

You mean to tell me that isn't deflecting and misdirecting.

Ohhhhhhh! LOL! I smell a hypocrite.

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

And dimwit what pray tell do you think they are uncertain of anyways? I guess using your logic when they point to uncertainty you think in your feeble mind it means the whole shebang?

But I am betting the uncertainty lies with the effects of global warming and the time scales in which they will take place. Plus the timescales of the needed actions to limit the effects of man made climate change.

Sheesh you take one little data point and use it to discount the whole issue.

Talk about dishonest.

Posted 180 days ago.

mythravere

All this arguing over bullchit he said she said bologna....but you still will not talk about the actual warming of this planet and what is causing it if man is not the cause.

Me thinks you pick your battle carefully.

Posted 180 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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