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
3 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

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 186 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 186 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 186 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 186 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 186 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 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 186 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 186 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 186 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 186 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 186 days ago.

mythravere

So I guess you being "right" means the shipping lanes in the north that are opening up aren't really happening? Right? LOL!

He11 we're headed for a new ice age. Huck yuck!

Posted 186 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! You think you won this debate. Ha! Thats funny!

I guess the question now is how much of the science is the result of "funding" being got that way.

Probably a drop in the bucket compared to what energy companies have spent in trying to thwart this message.

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets take one more look at what she says in a moment of honesty............The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

Then harry begs to know if I want to reduce uncertainty??? This is the biggest red herring of all since harry believes 97% of scientific thought is on his side and very certain. ( a myth I dispelled earlier). So if the science is settled, how do we reduce uncertainty??/? Priceless

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

The only pertinent question Harry is do you believe that climate scientists exaggerate in order to scare the public motivate politicians and increae funding? Or is the climate program director at NOAA wrong?

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

Somehow harry attempts to change the topic about lying to get more funding into how sad it is that we fearful people want to cut off funding????? Where did that come from??? Then dear harry lights one up, and brings forth the strawman tobacco companies??///// pathetic really, not your best effort Harry.

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirectionIt's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

Work .calls, more like the bell saving you. .

Posted 186 days ago.

Tiredofit

Your view means nothing to this subject, you challanged me for evidence of funding being tied to results. I give you the climate program director at Noaa admitting it. Now you try to talk about smoking and other nonsense.

Posted 186 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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