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
33 minutes ago.
by Tiredofit
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

Tiredofit

you will embrace any source that supports you belief, and reject any that questions it. Sorta like a religion or cult perhaps.

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

Wikipedians" redirects here. You may be looking for Wikipedia:Wikipedians.

Wikipedia community

WM2006 0018.jpg

Wikimania, an annual conference for users of Wikipedia and other projects operated by the Wikimedia Foundation

The Wikipedia community is the community of contributors to the online encyclopedia Wikipedia. These contributors are also known as "Wikipedians".

The overwhelming majority of Wikipedians are volunteers. With the increased maturity and visibility of Wikipedia other categories of Wikipedians are recognized: paid contributors and students with assignments related to editing Wikipedia. So you counter 31,ooo scientists who you claim are anonymous with WIKI???? ***** who the heck wrote that???????????????

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

Lastly, I would cite this for review: h t t p://en.wikipedia.o rg/wiki/Oregon_Petition

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

Looking at the petition website I have to note a few things.

There is no way to confirm that those who sign the petition are who they say they are. I could ask for a petition, sign "The Rev. Sir Doctor Stephen Tyrone Mos Def Colbert, D.F.A." and they probably wouldn't even check to make sure it's legit.

The appeals to authority are terrible. Numerous times the site brags about their 9K+ PHDs as if that is evidence.

Unless I missed it, the founders of this petition never disclose who they are. That's a red flag.

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

Bill Nye provides evidence and explanation to his theories. Those that sign a petition do not. They give an opinion without any evidence to back it up. They do not provide anything to support the following claims they make:

1. The proposed limits on greenhouse gasses would harm the environment...

2. ...there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in the atmosphere carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects...

Just because those scientists signed it does not show they understand the science behind it.

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

“Have you read the petition of over 31,000.american scientists?”

No, but I would be glad to look at it and comment. However, I’m not going to read 31,000 separate scientific papers. I feel that’s asking too much.

Would you be glad to look at what Bill Nye said and comment?

Also, where did I predict doom? I’ve said I agree with the chairman of Exxon-Mobile; it’s an engineering problem that is well within our capacity to solve.

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

"I have provided a link more than once of 31,487 American scientists that signed a petition rejecting man made global warming."

That would an Appeal to Authority Fallacy. You have proven nothing.

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

Simple question harry even for you. Why is bill Nye any more credible than over 31,000 scientists that don't buy your warming myth

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

I am not the one predicting doom, it's you who are afraid.

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

Have you read the petition of over 31,000.american scientists?

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

I checked out what CNS said, and I explained why I feel they distorted the issue. Won't you accord Bill Nye the same consideration?

Why are you so afraid?

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Did you even check out what Bill Nye said?

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

How easily you forget. I have provided a link more than once of 31,487 American scientists that signed a petition rejecting man made global warming. Each was denounced as a shill for an oil company or not a "real" climatologist. Now you hold up a host for a kids tv show mechanical engineer with a BS IN science. So why SHOULD he be any more credible.

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

As to the question of why we need redemption, I like Tiredofit’s answer.

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

That takes care of CNS. With respect to Bill Nye, Mythravere, of course, asked the relevant question: “Why are the things Bill Nye said false?”

Tiredofit, as usual, refused to address the relevant question.

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree.

We shouldn’t reject an article simply because it appears in a certain publication. We should judge each article on its own merits.

And, as I pointed out earlier, the CNS article distorts NOAA’s findings when they claim “…[2012] was one of the coolest of the decade, and thus confirms the cooling trend.”

In this case, the article distorts by leaving out key facts—9 of the 10 hottest years on record have come within the decade in question and a decade isn’t long enough to establish a climate trend.

So, while we shouldn’t reject a CNS article outright, it’s ok to suspect CNS articles because we have already caught them distorting evidence.

The Counter Climate Change Movement (CCCM) regularly distorts scientific evidence by omitting key facts.

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhahahahahahah!

CNS News! The RIGHT News! Right NOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (deadpan)

Formerly know as the Conservative News Service.

So....lol...The right news right now....is that the same thing as another news service being "fair" and "balanced"?

Hmmm..bhwaaahahahahahahah!

POT Meet Kettle

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

Seems to me that when facts and the truth are laid on the table you look for a means of discrediting the source so that you don't have to deal with an......inconvenient truth. You mean like CNS, Christian Science Monitor, Forbes, Fox and all the other ones you dismiss out of hand????? Hypocritcal much?

Posted 208 days ago.

mythravere

Seems to me that when facts and the truth are laid on the table you look for a means of discrediting the source so that you don't have to deal with an......inconvenient truth.

In the case of Bill Nye he's not to be trusted because he hosted a science based tv show which lead to him attaining a spot in popular culture?

What is the reasoning for distrusting him?

Posted 210 days ago.

mythravere

So easily lead you say? Hmmm.

Why are the things Bill Nye said false?

Seeing as how the test featured in his video is something that you or me could easily perform I wonder why he would go to the trouble of doing something that could be easily debunked?

It can't though can it?

If so then explain why.

Posted 210 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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