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 hours 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

Ohwiseone

The dependence on fossil fuel energy sources since the industrial revolution has undoubtedly shaped economic prosperity for the developed world. However, an unfortunate by-product of fossil fuel combustion is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), an important greenhouse gas that is known to influence long-term climatic variations through its ability to absorb infra-red radiation.

Human emissions of CO2 have resulted in atmospheric levels higher than any period over the last 20 million years. The continued emission of CO2 will lead to widespread climate change related impacts. ~~Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) UNSW Australia, Sydney NSW 2052 Australia All I advocate is there IS research that says man has and will have a role in climate change !

Posted 11 days ago.

harryanderson

Based on past experience, I predict you’ll use the shotgun approach next.

My posts revealed the absurdity of your demands for proof, so you’ll bury my posts under a bunch of short posts and plagiarizing someone else.

Posted 11 days ago.

harryanderson

“Another ‘true believer’ without a shred of PROOF just itching to empower Government.”

There you go again.

By calling me a “true believer,” you are using an ad hominem argument (attacking an opponent rather than his or her position).

By claiming I’m “just itching to empower Government” (sic), you are using the straw man argument (misrepresenting an opponent’s position to discredit her or him).

I figured you’d go there. Again.

Posted 11 days ago.

harryanderson

“To be proven, something needs to be demonstrable and repeatable.”

That’s absurd. If that were true, we could never prove something that could only happen once. Suppose Clyde killed Moira. According to your definition, we couldn’t prove it because Moira could not be killed again. Sure, you could have Clyde kill Truman, but contrarians like you could always argue that it wasn’t the same because Truman isn’t Moira.

You’d better stick to the childish insults, Tiredofit. It’s the only way you can win. If you step into the field of rational discourse, you lose every time.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept scientific evidence?

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

Will you accept the scientific evidence?

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

And to make your case, you refer to Galileo observing evidence to prove something. Yet you refuse to observe the many pieces of evidence that have been offered to you.

So if you won’t consider the evidence, how can you prove something?

This is too rich.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

BINGO. Read what you’ve posted. You’ve admitted you won’t accept scientific evidence.

Here’s what you wrote: “Proof is a concept that is really only applicable in mathematics, because math deals with abstract concepts and definitions. “

I knew that. Unlike myth, I’m good at math. I knew you’d have to come around to mathematical proof. You had no choice (except to change your mind, which you’re incapable of doing on this issue)

Since the climate is measurable and observable instead of abstract, climate change can’t be proven, according to you. Therefore, by your own definitions, you are demanding we do the impossible.

And that makes your position absurd.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

"SO you don't have any"

Don't have any what?

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

There can be no proof without evidence. if you won't accept evidence, it's impossible to prove anything to you.

So I ask the question again. Are you now willing to accept scientific evidence?

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

"A demonstrable link, linear cause and effect, direct correlation."

That's not the way the rest of the world defines proof. According to dictionary dot com, proof is "evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth" or "anything serving as such evidence."

In law, its "evidence having probative weight."

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

"We've tried to have a nice rational discussion with Tiredofit to no avail."

Of course. That's why he subverts rational discussion. The scientific debate, which involves reason, is "of enormous frustration" to him, so he must avoid it.

And his ego won't allow him to avoid it by staying away, so he turns the discussion into something like a Saturday night brawl in Anchorage when the Palin clan arrives in a stretch Hummer,

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

You've been asked to define what you mean by proof.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

That last statement makes no sense. Since you avoid providing an answer to my simple question, I'll take it to mean that you're not willing to accept scientific evidence.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

"Harry, you cannot have a scientific discussion without provable scientific FACT."

Are you ready to accept scientific evidence? Yes or no?

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

"I know full well that I am and that makes me dig in even harder."

A little friendly advice is in order.

Your digging results a deeper hole. And you know what's in the ground. The sewer.

Those in the sewer want to get you to jump in with them. They'll call you names, hoping to get you mad enough to reciprocate, then they'll howl because you called them names.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, myth

There's no sense in getting frustrated with a person who won't accept scientific evidence when that person has said, "It's not a scientific discussion."

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

I didn't blame you. You trap is obvious. I blame myth for being naive enough to fall into it.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

Wise up, Myth. He's stated that scientific proof means nothing to him. He doesn't think it's a scientific discussion. He's been honest about it.

Posted 12 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth,

You aren't very smart sometimes. Can't you see that you're being baited?

Posted 12 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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