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
3 hours ago.
by JoeBlow
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

harryanderson

Ithink,

I am not “right.” Only God is right. The words I “preach” from the Bible aren’t mine. They come from God. It’s not my doing if those words make you feel like you’re wrong. God intended them to make you feel like you need to make an adjustment. God says he intends them for “doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness.

And please explain how my opinions on global climate change are “Democratic.” According to a poll I cited a few days ago, many Republicans share them.

Posted 490 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

I don’t believe you: I think you do intend to denigrate my faith. When I give Biblical reasons for my positions, and another person repeatedly calls me a fraud for doing so, it seems to me that person intends to denigrate my faith.

Posted 490 days ago.

What a pair. One frequently says he doesn't like either party. But just watch how he ALWAYS sides with the democrats. Who asked you to leave, myth, as you are always complaining about?

The other SAYS he is a republican, but mostly talks the talking points of the democrats. Then, he preaches, as a way of telling us he is right and we are wrong

Posted 491 days ago.

harryanderson

I don’t know what a Forbes magazine editorial claimed NASA said two years ago. I don’t consider it important because Forbes lacks expertise in the area. Here’s what NASA itself published four days ago about a joint study it conducted with the University of Tasmania:

"’Our research revealed warming of the planet can be clearly detected since 1873 and that our oceans continue to absorb the great majority of this heat,’ said researcher and lead author Will Hobbs of the University of Tasmania's Institute for Marine and Antarctic Studies and the Australian Research Council's Centre of Excellence for Climate System Science. ‘Currently, scientists estimate the oceans absorb more than 90 percent of the heat trapped by greenhouse gases, and we attribute the global warming to anthropogenic (human-produced) causes.’"

ww w.jpl.nasa.gov/news/news.php?release=2013-175

If we want to know what NASA says, I suggest we consult NASA, not a Forbes editorial.

Posted 491 days ago.

harryanderson

“Science does NOT support your Christian beliefs so you are a denier yourself no?”

I sure am.

I’m glad you asked that, tiredofit. I’m always ready to give a reason for the hope that is in me.

My faith requires denial. Hebrews says, “Now faith is…the evidence of things not seen.”

However, non-Biblical knowledge, or things I see, also plays a role in forming my beliefs. Proverbs says, “The fear of the LORD is the beginning of knowledge: but fools despise wisdom and instruction.” So I first look to God. After that, I consult knowledge, or physical evidence, and wisdom, or logic. I don’t despise wisdom and instruction: I put them in their proper place.

When evidence and logic contradict God’s word, I choose to believe God’s word. I do deny: I deny that my eyes and my reason are more reliable than God’s promises.

And that applies directly to the discussion of anthropogenic climate change.

Posted 491 days ago.

When you speak of "2011 vintage", myth, are you implying that 2011 is ancient history?

And here I thought you believed that your scientists could read the unrecorded past and see into the unpredictable future.

Now you act like somethng said in 2011 is worthless old stuff.

Posted 491 days ago.

://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Facts and evidence mean nothing to liberal alarmists.

Posted 492 days ago.

harryanderson

In the absence of those, the word of God.

Posted 492 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure.

Evidence and logic.

Posted 492 days ago.

harryanderson

By the way, Hansen and his co-authors published that paper in 2000. Just last month Hansen retired from NASA to work full-time advocating for action to limit anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. He probably wouldn’t have done that if he believed anthropogenic climate change isn’t a problem.

Thanks for bringing up Hansen’s body of work; he’s an authority on the subject, unlike anonymous posters.

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

Show me where Hansen said that.

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m won’t comment on the “global warming hysteria” post because it’s anonymous. The two most important factors in evaluating the credibility are expertise and trustworthiness. We can’t evaluate the expertise of anonymous posters, and we should strongly suspect the trustworthiness of an anonymous post on an obscure website called “global warming hysteria.”

I’ll pay attention to any reasonable evidence, but this isn’t reasonable. Perhaps you’d like to “do this dance all day,” but I’m not willing to waste that much time. We’ve each made clear what kinds of evidence we base our opinions upon.

Posted 493 days ago.

"After conducting the study, Hansen concluded that it was not man-made CO2 that was causing global warming."

There is no evidence that global warming is man made. Are you sure you read the article,harry?

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

(see previous post)

“But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.”

Hansen and the other authors were clearly arguing for limits on both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Like I said, we learn more when we look past headlines.

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

We learn more when we look past headlines.

On the “occupycorporatism” site to which Ithink linked, the body of the article does not reflect the headline. Nowhere does the body of the article state that James Hansen “admits global warming is not man-made.”

Here is the quote attributed to Hansen in the article and on which the headline is apparently based: “Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.”

So the headline is an unsupported claim. Next we’ll look at what the summary in the abstract of the actual paper linked to by Suzanne Posel, the author of the article. That abstract makes it clear that the authors were talking about human-generated non CO2 greenhouse gases: (see next post)

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

We learn more when we look past headlines.

On the “occupycorporatism” site to which Ithink linked, the body of the article does not reflect the headline. Nowhere does the body of the article state that James Hansen “admits global warming is not man-made.”

Here is the quote attributed to Hansen in the article and on which the headline is apparently based: “Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.”

So the headline is an unsupported claim. Next we’ll look at what the summary in the abstract of the actual paper linked to by Suzanne Posel, the author of the article. That abstract makes it clear that the authors were talking about human-generated non CO2 greenhouse gases: (see next post)

Posted 493 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-made-global-warming-crisis/

We can dance this tango all day,harry.

Just don't expect the rest of us to finance the fabulous fantasies of the climate changers. Supply all your own money for the get rich fast kids like Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Obama's friends..

Posted 493 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.globalwarminghysteria.c om/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

The sky is not falling.

Posted 493 days ago.

It all depends on each individual's common sense interpretation of the many differing opinions.

h ttp://w ww.occupycorporatism.c om/eco-fascist-james-hansen-admits-global-warming-is-not-man-made/

Posted 493 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly! The oceans started warming at the same time humans started burning more fossil fuels.

This from the link Random21 posted confirms what I said,

“Previous research has shown that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it is radiating, and that 90 percent of the excess heat added to the climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans.”

So the link put up by Random21 confirms it—there has been a warming trend, and the oceans are storing the excess heat.

Posted 493 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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