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 day 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

Stillhere

It's nice you can pick and choose what science you chose to believe, I call that fraudulent

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

How foolish, crop yields? Lol warmth is required for crops the ice age was not a paradise.

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Your failing is not seeing the bias in the studies you cite, of course you won't, it's a religion

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

And a very large majority of climate scientists, according to several studies, have analyzed the data and predicted anthropogenic global climate change will threaten infrastructure and crop yields in the future.

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Every time you claim 97% agreement, you cite Mann's political lie

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Lindzen is far more Learned that you will ever be

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

And if Michael Mann has a political outlook, that doesn't mean anything to me, either. I'd never quote Michael Mann the political commentator because I don't care about his political leanings.

Climate scientists aren't there to provide public policy prescriptions, which involves other areas of expertise like economics. Climate scientists are there to analyze physical data and make predictions about future warming.

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

I'd rather see Richard Lindzen be right than Michael Mann.

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

So Dr. Lindzen ventures into the political realm, as is his right in a free society, but we need to remember that expertise in one area doesn’t mean expertise in another.

I said earlier that Dr. Lindzen’s opinions merit serious consideration. I should make it clear that his scientific opinions merit consideration because he’s has the education and background to speak authoritatively.

However, I don’t factor Dr. Lindzen’s political leanings into my decision on whether to accept the conclusions of the large majority of climate scientists. He’s not credible in this area.

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Lindzen is far more Learned that you will ever be

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Ahh but Michael Mann has no political agenda nor does Algore lol you have a very bias way of looking at things Harry. But I get it, its your religion

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

That should read, "Scientists provide evidence for their claims. Lindzen provides no evidence for this claim."

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

So is it Lindzen the scientist or Lindzen the political commentator speaking here?

The political commentator, of course. We know this for two reasons.

1. Scientists provide evidence for their claims. Lindzen provides none. It’s opinion.

2. Scientists appeal to the intellect, not the emotion. Notice the emotional language Lindzen employs here. “Crony capitalism” is a pejorative currently in vogue to attack “green” energy projects. And “see their eyes bulge” is intended to demean someone. (Lindzen doesn’t say whom he demeans, which is another departure from scientific dialogue; scientists should make their data available.)

It’s clear Lindzen functions as a political commentator, and that’s probably why he “no longer makes any effort to engage with the scientific community about his theories.” See the Weekly Standard article I sourced earlier.

Posted 254 days ago.

harryanderson

I wrote that I had 2 issues with Lindzen: 1. He has a political slant. 2. He makes confident predictions after saying the future climate is too complex to predict.

And now Stillhere has posted a statement that reinforces my first issue—Lindzen’s political focus.

Stillhere posted, “’Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,’ Lindzen said.”

That is what the Weekly Standard called “a political outlook..”

Straight from the Lindzen lips.

Since Dr. Lindzen mixes politics, which nearly always involves lies, with science, which involves unbiased search for truth, how can we know which side of him speaks at any given time? Is it the scientist or the political commentator?

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

'There is NO Climate Crisis' Man-made global warming is a lie and not backed up by science, claims leading meteorologist

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Look at any topic on this or the Times site and you will see his name on them all, his life is so pathetic he talks to himself online lol

Posted 254 days ago.

Stillhere

Ithink I would recommend you just ignore UNWISEONE, he's a pathetic person

Posted 254 days ago.

Ohwiseone

And its simple , Al Gores investment company can invest in anything he wants , so what ?

Posted 254 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Another inconvenient question !! LOLOL And still , we are waiting ........... Pay attention to how they seek to deflect from the question !!!

Posted 254 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Why are you so very afraid to answer a simple question ? So NO this isn't going away and you can try to ignore , deny, deflect all you right-wing minions of Faux want , but it will be right here waiting for you !

Posted 254 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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