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
6 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

mythravere

You not honestly seeking an understanding.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

You say that about everything laid on the table.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

Not so, NO ONE has offered proof. Lots of opinions and theory, computer models, bad predictions, but no proof whatsoever.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

You say man has no role in climate change.

In your eyes thats reality.

Good! Back it up with proof.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

I also don't think three toed sloths have anything to do with it, must I prove their innocence, lolololol

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

Why are you even asking for proof when you know full well there is nothing we can provide that will sway your opinion?

Its been provided countless times.

You don't want to consider it.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

But you must know that you are proposing the existence of the fact that mans does not have a role in climate change ........perhaps you dumbest statement to date.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

We've played this game of putting facts on the table.

You will discount anything we say.

So we are playing another game now.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

If what you say is the truth then it is the fact that needs to supported by the burden of proof.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

You just don't comprehend well do you?

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

Wow you are dumb. Lol

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

You have bought into a MYTH, of which there is no proof in fact, every prediction is wrong.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

" The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence."

Ok. See previous posts in this here forum.

But you must know that you are proposing the existence of the fact that mans does not have a role in climate change so you are therefore responsible in proving the existence of what you say.

To you this fact is concrete and tangible therefore it exists and requires said proof.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

Still waiting for just one fact MYTH still do t have one?

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

One important element to remember in regards to negative proof is that once positive evidence has been presented the burden shifts to the skeptic to refute the evidence presented. One cannot keep arguing from the position of "negative proof" after the presentation of evidence. SO AGAIN I ASK FOR ONE SOLID PROVABLE FACT THAT PROVES MAN IS CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.

Posted 18 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit. Do you old chap spray vinegar at chemtrails?

Because the excuses you put on the table for not believing this stuff is akin to doing just that.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lol

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

In say manmade global warming does not exist. Now Jimmy does that clear it up for ya.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used to attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

Posted 18 days ago.

Tiredofit

I guess you dont know what it means to prove a negative

Posted 18 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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