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 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

Kendall78

"in fact no warming for nearly two decades"

"...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 104 days ago.

Kendall78

"Climate Scientist:"

What scientist?

You?

Some guy down the street?

Who? Do you even know?

Posted 104 days ago.

Kendall78

I am not dissuaded in my skepticism by your begging.

Gimme this...gimme that..gimme gimme gimme.

What are you...on intellectual welfare or something?

Posted 104 days ago.

Kendall78

"if you cannot make your case then say so"

What is "your" case Tired?

And when are you going to make it?

Posted 104 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."

What are your issues with this scientist's findings Tired?

Do you disagree with them?

Do you have some data that counters their findings?

Are you just a twit?

Posted 104 days ago.

Kendall78

I se not citations, facts, data or anything relevant from Tired.

It does seem that he hopes to twitter away the topic by burying it under a lot of short, insulting, irrelevant, ego stroking drivel though.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

If you want proof CO2 is a greenhouse gas, take it up with scientists like Judith Curry and Roy Spencer who say it is. Write your own scientific paper.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

The personal attack is all you have, and you go back to it again and again.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

"But you cannot, Larry Moe, Curly and SHemp you all fail and it frustrates you"

Why must you always revert to the name-calling? Could it be because, like Joe Bast said, "The scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration" to you?

Kendall and I cite a climate scientist, and you come back with some drivel about the Three Stooges.

You still haven't explained why you should "not necessarily" be held liable for causing someone breathing problems.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

So, you see,

Pointing to the scientific debate only increases his frustration. He can't even accept that CO2 is a greenhouse, which was proven back in 1896 and is accepted even by the 3% of climate science who don't think CO2 poses significant risks. Even Roy Spencer and Judith Curry admit CO2 is a greenhouse gas. They disagree on the severity of its impact.

But Tiredofit hasn't even admitted that its a greenhouse gas.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit must undermine climate science because, like his hero Joe Bast says, "The scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

And of course Tiredofit won't accept the testimony of climate scientists. He can't because he can't lose. And he has lost the scientific debate.

Like Joe Bast, the Heartland Institute boss, said, "We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well. But the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth and Kendall,

You are 100% correct. Tiredofit will never accept the testimony of climate scientists unless they agree with his political and cultural worldview. He's made that clear. After all, he has said that it's a political debate, not a scientific debate.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

And if anonymous internet posters want to be considered more credible than the world's most-published experts, then let those posters list their credentials. What is their academic background? What have they published, and where?

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

The most-published and most-peer-reviewed climate scientists are the most credible experts out there, and several studies have shown that 97% of them accept the consensus opinion.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

According to this scientist, the heat is going into the oceans.

I still say climate scientists have more credibility than others on this subject, and I don't believe they lie to get government funding, and I don't believe all these climate scientists are twisting their findings to institute some kind of socialist government.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

Kendall posted a statement from someone with expertise on the subject. Not Charles Krauthammer, not John Cook, not an anonymous internet poster.

A scientist. Kendall posted, "'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 104 days ago.

harryanderson

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

I understood you to answer, "Not necessarily."

Under what circumstances should you not be liable for causing someone else's breathing problems?

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

"By your logic, peanut growers would bear the medical costs of those with peanut allergies, dog owners for those with pet allergies."

Wrong. Peanut growers and dog owners don't CAUSE allergies.

Posted 104 days ago.

harryanderson

"But some profit more, like you."

Wherever did you get that idea? Perhaps you need to look up the definition of "vested interests."

In law, a "vested" interest is a right or title that can be conveyed to another.

I didn't say I profited more than others.

Posted 104 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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