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 minute 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

Tiredofit

No way out for ya on this one Harry. No one said a thing about cutting existing funding, she wants MORE. And we sensational exaggerations is how you get there, lets just call it lying.

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets take another look at what she said.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.. .only way to assure any political action and THUS MORE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Posted 210 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

When did science decide exaggerating was ok? I thought it was just about the facts? No agenda, no thought of money? Yeah right.

Posted 210 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty, Tiredofit?

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

You have lost harry. It's obvious now you bring up smoking to deflect. Lets focus Harry. You challanged me to show any evidence where results were tied to FUNDING and vise versa. I have CLEARLY shown a FEDERAL agency climate program director and scientist admitting to exagerations of data/results to gain MORE FUNDING.

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

Good lord you are funny. She admits to exaggerating to get political action and more funding. So the exaggerations are knowingly not accurate, and the reason to lie, is to get attention and MONEY.

Posted 210 days ago.

harryanderson

It'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 210 days ago.

harryanderson

Read again what you wrote.

You said they sought funding "to reduced the scientific uncertainty."

In other words, fill in the knowledge gaps you're always bringing up. Who can complain about that? Who doesn't want to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

I'll tell you who--those whose political, ideological, and cultural biases control them.

Posted 210 days ago.

harryanderson

But she didn't link funding to results like you did. Do you have any examples where funding was linked to results? That's the claim you made.

You wrote, "results=funding."

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

Good catch Kendall and you make my point, of course she is on your side that gives her MORE credibility right, not like she is a DENIER. SHE ADMITS TO EXAGGERATION FOR FUNDING.* being a scientist and a director of a program in a FEDERAL agency, I would say she knows both politics and science better than anyone here.

Posted 210 days ago.

mythravere

But I know you won't. Just drop your insult and move along then.

Posted 210 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit you are such a fool. We can see all around us that the world is warming which begs that we make changes to how we consume energy because it is the use of that energy that is getting us into this issue.

But the energy problem is a double edged sword. Not only is the massive amounts of carbon we are emitting causing climate issue but that energy source is finite.

Renewables will take time to get them to the point where they can take over the load. Not to mention we need to consume less energy through better efficiency.

That reason right there is reason enough to start weaning ourselves off of carbon based energy.

But renewables...not as big as a profit making potential oh sorry not much funding potential with renewables.

I'd like to see your cowardly behind tackle the reasoning behind that.

Posted 210 days ago.

mythravere

Ok now that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is now time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Typing to dang fast.

Posted 210 days ago.

mythravere

Check mate? LOL! Hardly!

This is the place where I show your foolishness.

Ok not that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is not time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

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. ONE MORE TIME MAYBE JT WILL SINK IN. NOAA CLIMATE PROGRAM DIRECTOR. A FEDERAL AGENCY.

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

So there is your proof that climate science knows that exaggeration leads to FUNDING HARRY. CHECK MATE OLE BOY.

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

But your arrogance has got you again.

Posted 210 days ago.

Tiredofit

Of course she's a warmer, never said she was not, but she freely admits to exaggerating for political action and funding. Nice try harry.

Posted 210 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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