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
37 minutes ago.
by Ohwiseone
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

Well, Lizden did say the following,

1. "We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800."

2. "We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas."

3. "there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?"

I agree with all those things he said. Do you?

Posted 267 days ago.

Oñ Drudge, click on " MIT climate scientist takes on the Warmists."

Oh, Drudge is below your IQ level. So strange that the most successful sources are not on your educated approved list.

Hold your breath, Kendall, while you wait for me to try to prove the unknown. You and your red friends take care of that silliness.

Posted 267 days ago.

Kendall78

Unless I missed it, I am guessing not much has changed in the debate and that Tired or Ithink have not yet produced any evidence that global warming/climate change is not being effected by mankind.

Posted 267 days ago.

Kendall78

Good giref, it hasn't even been 24 hours since my last comment and it was 6 pages back. I know we all tend to do 1 or 2 sentence responses, but Tired...you might want to combine more of your points together so we don't have such a spread out conversation. I would also recommend that to R1K, but he thinks his pointless headlines serve a purpose.

Posted 267 days ago.

harryanderson

“I share Harrys view of creation and the bible.”

Since you share my view of the Bible, do you ever think about the Bible's words when you’re writing your hateful posts?

“Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.”

“But whoever says, ‘You fool!’ shall be in danger of*****fire.”

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

You’re funny, Tiredofit.

You call people names right and left, but as soon as you feel you’ve been wronged, you howl like a shoat after it’s throat has been cut and it’s hanging upside down to bleed.

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

“Oh undeducated Myth”

Before throwing off on someone’s education, you might want to check the spelling of “uneducated” and “undereducated.” Then, we might be able to tell what word you meant to use.

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

“Of course those that derive their funding from panic agree with the panic, no mystery there.”

I pose the questions again, since you again raise the issue of funding.

How many instances can you cite in which a scientist distorted his study in order to receive a grant?

And how did those studies pass peer review from other scientists who didn't receive the grants?

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

“You clowns think you have science on your side”

Sure we have climate science on our side: 97% of climate scientists agree.

Of course, that shouldn’t bother you, since you feel “it’s not a scientific discussion.”

Posted 268 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- I was being somewhat sarcastic in my comment. It was directed to Ithink and not you. You just got your comment posted before I got mine up.

I find a lot of people tend to use the "it's not that bad" argument but then they have no idea when something actually become bad enough.

Posted 268 days ago.

Kendall78

Too true Harry. I just wish that those who use authorities (even credible ones)as evidence would argue what the person said and not use the person's educational background or job as the primary reason to believe them.

Obviously it makes more sense to give a little more credence to climate change scientist who isn't peer reviewed that has a logical and thought out theory than a layman just looking at internet headlines.

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

I don't know the answer to your last question, Kendall. Experts have found that coal smoke contains substances that harm peoples' health, but I don't know how much a coal smoke a person can breathe without being harmed.

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

Like I wrote, Kendall we're free to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. I consider those who have published peer-reviewed papers in the field to have the highest expertise.

Another dimension of a witnesses credibility is her or his character.

Posted 268 days ago.

Kendall78

"a little coal burning is a non event."

How much has to burn to be a lot of coal?

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

"a little coal burning is a non event."

True, but large-scale burning of coal is harmful.

Posted 268 days ago.

Kendall78

I would also question the gernalized way we might be looking at expert testimony. Even in the court room, there is the Daubert standard. Merely being an expert without the blessing of one's peers might not make a person's testimony evidence.

Posted 268 days ago.

It is not scientific reality to predict, speculate, guess, or feel, about an unknown future. And what is past has no effect on future unexpected happenings.

In the total picture of the earth and its changes, a little coal burning is a non event.

Posted 268 days ago.

Kendall78

"but the testimony of authorities is legitimate evidence."

I agree except in general, Tired and Ithink rarely give good citation to the science the so called authority talks about. Merely saying an authority figure disagrees seems to count in their book.

It would be like Steven Hawking saying a black hole is in fact an invisible dragon gobbling up space and everyone says, "Well Hawking is saying it and therefor it must be true."

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, Tiredofit is inconsistent when he cites a scientist, since he's said it's "not A scientific discussion."

Posted 268 days ago.

harryanderson

I meant evaluating his credibility (as well as his testimony).

Posted 268 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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