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 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

Kendall78

"The GOVT does not give grants to those whos findings say its a natural cycle.."

Guess those scientists are not very convincing.

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

The GOVT does not give grants to those whos findings say its a natural cycle and not a crisis that needs Govt action.

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

No but you attack anything you can tie to the Koch brothers or Heritage foundation as biased by the money yet you cannot quite understand that the BILLIONS of grant dollars DO INDEED influence the results. Just like Monika says, they exaggerate or even LIE in my opionion to get MORE research dollars

Posted 21 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Look , just because research is funded in part by the government doesn't make their findings invalid ! What is invalid is the republicans trying to protect their wealthy benefactors (coal,oil) from something that might cost these same benefactors money !!! Its the same with Obamacare, the only difference is its the healthcare insurance industry they are protecting ! They don't really give a rats arse about Joe Lunchbox or his /her rights ! All this debate is just about MONEY!!!!

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

That is until like in the case of the biofuel alternatives being developed by the Navy are sidelined out of pure political vindictiveness.

Because why oh why should our navy be investing in alternative fuels when its all based on a hoax anyways?

So its clear. The navy got so far as to actually have an F/A-18 flying on on a 50/50 mix of biofuel.

I don't think its been totally sidelined fortunately. Although quite a few congressman pulled out their binkies and cried of few tears over it.

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

But an interesting aside to all of this is that quite a few big players in the energy industry that took issue with climate change no longer do so. The see it for the problem it is. And are investing in alternative energy sources or research into alternatives.

Also there is no questioning the issue when our very own military sees climate change as a potential threat to national security.

So while some people feel there is a "debate" on this issue others aren't letting their judgement be clouded the "questions" that surround this issue and are actively planning to deal with problems that it will bring us.

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

"It seems many of these scientists that are studying global warming are paid from grants from the government. The more you find the more money you make."

If profit was the singular motivation for scientific discovery then we'd find ourselves lacking in quite a few modern amenities.

But I must say if profit/funding is a concern then one must also question those who have taken issue with climate change.

A bunch of the various companies,groups and individuals that have taken issue with this topic also have a vested interest in industries that are threatened by the response to man made climate change.

So they use their deep pockets to fight the issue by casting doubt that people like tiredofit latch onto.

And that leads to the discussion on this issue being muddied up and politicized.

Oh and these entities I am talking about pretty much have a huge swath of conservative government officials in their pocket. And the puppets say what the puppeteer wants them to.

Posted 21 days ago.

Kendall78

"The more you find the more money you make."

That's the kind of thinking that got the vaccination/autism conspiracy stuff going but one should get all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

If the scientists are fudging data for more grants, then it should be easy to prove. And of course it takes more than a few scientists to discredit an entire scientific premise.

Posted 21 days ago.

JoeBlow

It seems many of these scientists that are studying global warming are paid from grants from the government. The more you find the more money you make. It seems like when you hire consultants to come in. They always find changes for you to make, and then in a few years it is changed back to what you were doing in the first place.

Posted 21 days ago.

Kendall78

"climate scientists might exaggerate"

climate scientists might sprout wings

climate scientists might become deniers

climate scientists might grow two heads

climate scientists might dye their hair green

Wow...so many mights and they are all equal without proof Tired. So if you are claiming they all exaggerate, provide evidence to this claim of yours.

Posted 21 days ago.

Kendall78

"STOPPED heating the earth and just decided to heat the ocean"

The oceans are part of the Earth...duh.

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty. MONIKA KOPACZ NOAA climate change project lead

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

So suddenly the CO2 that you say causes global warming STOPPED heating the earth and just decided to heat the ocean?>???? huh how the heck would that work

Posted 21 days ago.

Kendall78

Actually...I see nothing but opinion in the copy/paste you put up.

Now if you would put the actually citation from Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH and RSS...then you might have something. For all we know, that cite you copy/pasted from could be lying about what those places said.

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

yeah but you get it all back that's my point

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

I pay federal tax. Pretty lame attempt at slinging mud though.

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

If I remember right they found water temperature increases as far down as 900ft.

Posted 21 days ago.

Kendall78

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets.."

Well..let's see this latest...wait...2008? How is this up to date?

Tired...try researching.

Posted 21 days ago.

Tiredofit

Since you don't pay federal Tax Myth, maybe you are not concerned.

Posted 21 days ago.

mythravere

What I was talking about was in the news in like the last week or two.

Posted 21 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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