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
18 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

Stillhere

Harry for you to be blind to the politics of this issue tells me you are being dishonest yet again, once again you show your hard left bias. republican yeah right

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

The science IS politicized

Posted 9 days ago.

thegreek

Many think that it is a normal earth cycle that occurs every few decades, as I said before. It has been made a political issue by liberal administrations.. Maybe one reason conservatives do not generally buy into Al Gores nightmares !!!

Posted 9 days ago.

thegreek

OK. Here we go again. Many scientists will admit that there has been a change in the earths temps but disagree on the cause due to incomplete modeling. Seems liberals jump to the conclusion it is manmade and by halting all traces of carbon use for fuels, it will ease up but again many scientists feel if we stopped burning all feul tomorrow, everywhere in the world it still will not change the trend. SEE

ht tp : / / en. wikipedia. org/ wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, you try to turn it into a political debate because, as Bast said, the "scientific debate is of enormous frustration."

I'm not interested in a political discussion. It's all about the science.

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

And if it's not political why site POLITIfact? Here's a hint, if they have Fact in the name, it's doesn't mean they stick to them

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

You have the talking points down pat

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

Ahhhh he drags out the Tampa bay times politifact again lololol. We know that they enthusuasticly endorsed Obama twice. A liberal rag and a BS FACT CHECKER NICE TRY

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

No, it hasn't been debunked. Not by a long shot.

As Politifact said, "Additionally, much of climate change deniers’ back-up evidence is cherry-picked or too simplistic to be meaningful."

ht tp://w ww.politifact.co m/truth-o-meter/article/2014/dec/17/climate-change-year-fact-checking/

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

Oddly enough 97% of foxes moat actively eating my chickens think I should let them out more

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

A better way to say it is 97%of those that derive their living from government funding think the government should get more money for failed predictions

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

Sure is a good talking point but it's dishonest as he77

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

It’s all about the science, duh. And 97% of the most-published and most-cited scientists agree.

Still lying HARRY? That has been debunked multiple times

Posted 9 days ago.

harryanderson

Climate science skeptics won’t support science because they know they can’t win that debate.

Like Heartland Institute head Joe Bast said with uncharacteristic candor: "We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well, but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

ht tp://ww w.nature.c om/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html#close

That explains why they always try to turn it into a political discussion. They can’t win any other way, and they can’t change their minds.

In a rational, truth-seeking debate, we would discuss the relative accuracy of different temperature measurement methods. Instead, they wish to distract us from the science and talk about “the money duh” or “Lemmings begging for more govt.”

It’s all about the science, duh. And 97% of the most-published and most-cited scientists agree.

Posted 9 days ago.

Kunectdots

thegreek - Yep! Rather than lowering our standards of living, through Obama's reduction of input of CO2 into the environment, why not do what we can to discourage nations that are destroying the planets rainforests (the lungs of the Earth) from doing so?

I'm of the mindset that Obama's desire to impose higher energy costs upon the American people and it's industrial base, is little more than HIS attempt to bring the US to heel. He's stated that he doesn't consider our nation as being "exceptional", wanted to credit the Arab cultures for the scientific innovations he thinks they have been denied by civilization and is just a general open port for floodwaters of un-American ideological debris from around the planet. I consider him a traitor to our (our children's) posterity and believe he lied at every front for the sole purpose of crafting absolute power...and abusing it.

Posted 9 days ago.

moderation

Yes, support for science.

Posted 9 days ago.

Stillhere

Lemmings begging for more govt

Posted 10 days ago.

Stillhere

It's all about the money duh

Posted 10 days ago.

Stillhere

Yeah that's credible

Posted 10 days ago.

Stillhere

Lololol

Posted 10 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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