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 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

Kendall78

"are wanting a radical change in our very lives and economy"

What radical change are you alluding to?

Again, for consideration: earthobservatory.nasa.g ov/IOTD/view.p hp?id=80167

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

For consideration: earthobservatory.nasa.g ov/IOTD/view.p hp?id=80167

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

You have no proof that this study was funded by any government ! Please pass along your proof and facts supporting your ignorance !

Posted 49 days ago.

mythravere

As much as I hate to have to explain this I will.

It doesn't take too much thought to conclude that its highly possible that in a squirrels natural environment. The co2 it exhales in its lifetime is quickly taken up into the environment it resides in.

Thats part of the carbon cycle. The same carbon cycle that lead to fossil fuels in the ground.

The thing about mankind's emissions is that its on such an order that the natural environment can not deal with it all.

Its going to be interesting to see how you side step that.

Posted 49 days ago.

mythravere

" CO2 is CO2 regardless of its source but somehow you think because they live in trees as you say, they don't count LOL"

In addition to all of your other negative traits you are now putting words in my mouth. LOL!

Man you really couldn't be a bigger piece of*****could you?

Posted 49 days ago.

mythravere

Oh there is hard evidence that a change is needed and has nothing to do with the climate.

It does have everything to do with how much fossil fuels we have left. Which to say the least is that the more time goes by the more expensive its going to get.

I mean given the difficulty in replacing carbon based fuels with something similar and the fact some things that are made from fossil fuels can not be made without them...I think its just prudent to begin and I do mean begin the process of finding and developing alternatives.

And where possible move off of fossil fuels and onto renewables so that the fossil fuels can be used for other things. For example in the case of power generation.

People don't understand how much of what we have involves the use of fossil fuels.

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

"PROVE the negative"

No one has asked you to prove a negative.

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

"There has been NO evidence that a change is needed. NONE. If there was, you would have provided it."

And it was provided and you didn't understand it. Seems to me that the problem lies in between your ears dear boy ;)

"you would shut me up with some HARD evidence."

It's painfully clear that no amount of evidence would shut you up. Maybe a few rolls of duct tape but hard facts..nope..that won't shut you up one bit and there are about 200 pages of your blather to back that claim up with.

And please don't cower away from this but please give us your defintion of what evidnece is.

Posted 49 days ago.

mythravere

What in the world did you hope to gain from bringing up a comment about squirrels I made?

As for proving my "theory". Well its not really a theory but more an assumption. But since it carries no weight in this discussion I feel no need to flesh it out.

Which of course you are going to complain about.

LOL!

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

"church of ALGORE."

Wow, that's a pretty p*ss poor attempt at guilt by association Tired.

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

"But it WAS funded by government."

And the "so what" question comes about.

Do you have any evidence Tired that there is a direct correlation betwen funding and what the results of the scientist's findings?

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

"It is up to those advocating a change to justify said change.

And the change has been justified with evidence you have chosen not to accept.

Not really much more can be done with you.

There is also something to be said about those that want to stay the course for not good reason but to stay the course.

It has been acknowledged that man effects the Ozone Layer and that global warming is happening. Why would one keep allowing it to happen if it is harmful to us?

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Well , you don't know anything other than your right-wing brainwashing will let you and I have research from a study that's not funded by the USA ! HMMMMMMM now who would a sane person believe ??

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Still valid questions,Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ???? Since you all are holding to the official Faux news line-o crap I would like to see the facts you're working from !

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

,I would like to see the facts you're working from ! If your point of view is valid then by all means show us your facts !

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Please tiredbrain ,I would like to see the facts you're working from ! If your point of view is valid then by all means show us your facts !

Posted 49 days ago.

Kendall78

You are so funny Tired. We have asked you and whomever else is on your side of the argument for any proof of your argument. You give none and then want others to provide you with info. You are so intellectually lazy.

At least Greek makes an attempt and I can respect that.

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

I would like to see the facts you're working from !

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Oh that's right , that would be an inconvenience !

Posted 49 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ???? Since you all are holding to the official Faux news line-o crap I would like to see the facts you're working from !

Posted 49 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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