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
15 hours ago.
by Stillhere
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

Ohwiseone

Tiredofit

Did I state anything that was untrue? Oh yeah !!! Either way you want it tirebrain ! If you were truly a "shop steward" your representation would have been grounds for dismissal and then theres the other side of it ! You're probably just another republican liar who claims to be a steward from a Canadian union and wouldn't know the truth if it bit it on the arse !

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit I bet you're just a cranky old man set in his ways thats so politicized you think a commie is around every corner.

Why do you even post about this issue. You not trying to change anyones mind? So why do it.

If you wanted to change minds then you'd have to back up what you say wouldn't you? But thats not how you roll?

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

The words of the scientists are neutral. Doesn't matter where those words are posted at.

Its not like you would even consider their veracity anyways.

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit you don't state anything. Thats part of your game plan. All you do is deny deny deny.

And those "pics" from what I could tell in just a quick search are photoshops. Meaning someone made it up. Who? I have no idea.

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

"Cook is an activist and looks great in his Nazi uniform."

What does this have anything to do with climate change science and data?

Can you show that Cook's views are actually skewed or are you practicing the art of implication without facts again?

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

(From the BBC) "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984."

"The WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin doesn't measure emissions from power station smokestacks but instead records how much of the warming gases remain in the atmosphere after the complex interactions that take place between the air, the land and the oceans."

""The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans," said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO."

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

"Was not addressing you Jimmy, pay attention."

Learn to quote and do citations properly then. Any high schooler could do that, so I have hope you might be able to do it as well.

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

Its a fact the you Tiredofit. No matter what facts are sent your way. No matter how concisely the case is laid out.

You just can not admit its real.

And its all because of the political aspect of this issue.

Its you versus the lefties isn't it?

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

"The latest propaganda stunt from the Skeptical Science Kidz is underway and it is about as exciting as it is predictable. Every hour, a new opinion is revealed along with a cartoon climate scientist caricature drawn by former cartoonist turned “climate expert” John Cook."

So with this I must assume that you didn't bother to see whats being said but rather decided to appeal to your chosen authority?

If all you read is what the skeptics say then how are you getting the whole story?

I expected this much.

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

I didn't post anything about 97% of anything. Pay attention.

(From the BBC) "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984."

"The WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin doesn't measure emissions from power station smokestacks but instead records how much of the warming gases remain in the atmosphere after the complex interactions that take place between the air, the land and the oceans."

""The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans," said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO."

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

Just wanted to put something a little more relevant to the topic than unions in Canada.

Posted 76 days ago.

Kendall78

(From the BBC) "Concentrations of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere between 2012 and 2013 grew at their fastest rate since 1984."

"The WMO's annual Greenhouse Gas Bulletin doesn't measure emissions from power station smokestacks but instead records how much of the warming gases remain in the atmosphere after the complex interactions that take place between the air, the land and the oceans."

""The climate system is not linear, it is not straightforward. It is not necessarily reflected in the temperature in the atmosphere, but if you look at the temperature profile in the ocean, the heat is going in the oceans," said Oksana Tarasova, chief of the atmospheric research division at the WMO."

Posted 76 days ago.

mythravere

OH MY FREAKING GOODNESS! LOL! What a boon for you Tiredofit.

Google "97 Hours of Consensus"

97 scientists are give 97 reasons why climate change is real over 97 hours.

You wanted proof? There you go. Straight from the scientists themselves.

Now everyone watch as he fumbles around and rejects what they have to say.

Posted 76 days ago.

harryanderson

By "full cost," I mean all the costs not currently reflected in the purchase price.

For example, if your activities cause someone to suffer breathing problems, should you be held liable?

Posted 76 days ago.

harryanderson

"Do you agree that those that profit from the sale of fossil fuel should be held responsible?"

Yes, but I do have a couple of observations.

First, we all profit from the sale of fossil fuels. If we drive to work, or even take a bus, we're profiting. Shoot, we're even profiting if we bike to work on a road paid for with fuel taxes.

Second, I believe people should hold themselves responsible to avoid "be(ing) held responsible."

Posted 76 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Yeah you did once you were caught in your lie !Now who's shown to be the liar ?

Posted 76 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ????This is proof by your silence that your full of crap !

Posted 76 days ago.

Ohwiseone

There you go pilgrim !How boot that eh !

Posted 76 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Tiredofit

IAMAW Local Lodge 99

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 99

This is the local you cited ! Tiredofit

IAMAW Local Lodge 99

International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers Local Lodge 99

This is the local you cited !

Posted 76 days ago.

harryanderson

You mean the question about profits? What was that again?

Also, you haven't answered my question, which only requires a simple yes or no. That's ok, though. It shows how we are different.

Posted 76 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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