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
4 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

We have been through this time and again, peer reviewed does not mean TRUTHFUL or ACCURATE it just means your buddies agree.

Posted 191 days ago.

Tiredofit

I will remind you that number represents 75 people, and I guess your answer is NO they have not proven it they just theorize that it is likely. BIG DIFFERNECE

Posted 191 days ago.

harryanderson

They've certainly proved it enough to satisfy 97% of the climate scientists most actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals. To me, that represents a high probability.

And I notice you still produce no evidence of funding being tied to results. It's only your supposition.

Posted 191 days ago.

Tiredofit

You don't think there is any economic implication for those who are paid by Grants>? If the "crisis" went away, would the funding follow?

Posted 191 days ago.

Tiredofit

Have any PROVED IT?

Posted 191 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree. We should be wary of studies commissioned by organizations with a clear political or economic agenda. That includes both sides. Still, we shouldn’t discount or accept those studies without honestly critiquing them.

Earlier, you mentioned US government-commissioned studies conducted between 1993 and 2012. Evidently those studies were commissioned by both Democratic and Republican administrations and funded by both Democratic and Republican congresses. Governments with different political and ideological perspectives ordered and funded them. So we might expect different results. Is there any difference?

Different administrations may trumpet or downplay results depending on ideology, but is there any difference in the actual scientific findings? Have any government climate studies, even those conducted by conservatives in Bush’s administration, disproved the idea that greenhouse gases are changing the climate?

Posted 191 days ago.

Tiredofit

Every counter alarmist poll or study that is mentioned in the media is usually tied to the who funded it. On this very forum, the accusation has been made more than once that evidence was tainted due to oil company money. If there we no supposition that one could buy a result, why would it matter if oil companies paid for research? You believe that the Socialist Left Enviromarxists are not looking for result and those that give them the result seem to get more funding for more of the result. NO one ever said that there was a written connection between results and funding, that would be stupid. Doesn't take a genius to see where the money flows and why

Posted 191 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry it is precisely the over reach of the left and the fact that alarmists ignore the signs that entrenched we who doubt.”

True. Some have appealed to emotion and hyped the evidence, and that hardens the position of those who, like yourself, consider it a political rather than a scientific discussion.

As for myself, I refuse to be swayed by paralyzing fear, hype, cultural disdain, and unproven political conspiracy theories.

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

“I have said from day one that if you pay me enough I can correlate anything to climate change.”

And I have asked you from day one to show where any grantors gave grants on the condition that the recipients of those grants prove a connection between global climate change and greenhouse gases.

The first time I asked, you were honest, and admitted that you knew of no specific grant. Yet you keep repeating the charge. And after that first time, you also keep refusing to answer the question.

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

“You true believers never give a second of thought to the leaked emails and the damning evidence. You dismiss it as nothing.”

I gave it plenty of thought at first, but after “six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing,” I don’t believe the stolen emails are “damning evidence.”

Now I have a question for you, if you dare to address it. Do you dismiss the six official investigations as nothing?

You may read more about these six official investigations from the Union of Concerned Scientists at

ht tp://ww w.ucsusa.or g/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Posted 192 days ago.

luvthesouth

Tiredofit, thank you and that was very thoughtful of you. use of this forum is something i enjoy and respect. to stray off-topic too far in my opinion is being rude to the other contributors. that is why i suggested that maybe the discussion should be continued elsewhere...everyone and anyone can join in on another thread. y'all enjoy the current topic and please continue

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

You true believers never give a second of thought to the leaked emails and the damning evidence. You dismiss it as nothing. I have said from day one that if you pay me enough I can correlate anything to climate change. Yes there are fossil fuel interests funding some of the denial sites won't you admit the reverse is also true.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

So harry I guess it is a political discussion after all

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's the holocaust denial rhetoric and the ridiculous witch burning talk that does not help your cause.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry it is precisely the over reach of the left and the fact that alarmists ignore the signs that entrenched we who doubt.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lts not that you need my permission, but the thread has went awry many times before and I think you should take it where you like. As I said my permission means nothing

Posted 192 days ago.

luvthesouth

mythravere, thank you... the lucheon went very well. good time and plenty of tasty food to enjoy. i think a new topic for our discussion would be a grand idea. i noticed that kendall78 started one in the general froums titled...God, Time and Hawking. i think maybe ours might would stray away from his intent...who knows maybe not. either way i think in the end the questions and doubts you harbor will never be overcome if you truely feel that the ulitmate God, if they exist must somehow adhere to everyone's particular definition or vision of who or what God is or should be. however, it may be worth the time in which to have that discussion if you would be interested...so please feel free to have the honor in creating and naming the topic and choosing its location. you can be its creator...

Posted 192 days ago.

mythravere

There are two questions that need answering.

If we are the cause how much time do we have and what do we need to do to mitigate climate change.

Secondly if we just don't have time to mitigate it or the costs are just too high. How do we adapt to the coming changes.

Thats what we need to be worried about right now.

Posted 192 days ago.

mythravere

"The right’s refusal to accept the science prevents it from proposing conservative solutions. Conservatives create a vacuum, and the left gets to occupy that vacuum without a fight."

Thats whats bothered me about all of this.

Outside of the argument about whats to blame for the climate changing we know the earth is warming. We know this is going to have bad effects. The left has their position on what to do. The right though? Its all about denying what the left is trying to do. When instead they could easily argue from the standpoint of a conservative approach to dealing with the threats the climate change is throwing at us.

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

To put it another way…

The “socialist left” is very happy to accept the climate science that the right rejects--and then try to use the science to promote their nefarious agenda.

The right’s refusal to accept the science prevents it from proposing conservative solutions. Conservatives create a vacuum, and the left gets to occupy that vacuum without a fight.

Posted 192 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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