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
2 days 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

harryanderson

Ithink,

I see where you've been led astray--you said in one of the ten coldest years in US history.

But it's called GLOBAL, not US, climate change.

The US, which takes up .019% of the earth’s surface, can hardly be considered representative of global weather.

Posted 219 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink,

NOAA says 2013 has been the 4th warmest year on record.

I don’t know where you’re getting your information, but it conflicts with NOAA’s preliminary report for the year, which covers the period from Jan.-Nov., 2013. NOAA expects to release the full report Jan. 14.

The prelim states:

“The combined global land and ocean average surface temperature for the year-to-date (January–November) was 0.62°C (1.12°F) above the 20th century average of 14.0°C (57.2°F), tying with 2002 as the fourth warmest such period on record.”

ww w.ncdc.noaa.gov/sotc/global/2013/11

But let’s keep this in perspective. One year of warmer weather doesn’t make a trend.

Posted 219 days ago.

2013 also finishes 17 years of no global warming. I like it a little warmer myself.

Posted 220 days ago.

"2013 will finish as one of the 10 coldest years in US history."

Part of the earth's natural climate change.

Posted 220 days ago.

Kendall78

I don't see you citing the survey and you are the one that brought it up. My questions are hardly of the gotcha type. They are pretty simple and maybe that was the problem you have with them.

Posted 222 days ago.

Hunting straws, Kendall? Lol You couldn't even find a source for the survey.

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

What I am not finding is the evidence for this statement, "Government $400,000 study shows tea partiers are higher in scientific understanding."

Higher than who? In what type of scientific understanding?

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry you are nothing but a fraud

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Is your religion ANTI science Harry? Do your church sermons qualify as an anti science campaign

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

You have used the word deniers and have sworn off of it I do believe and you have use the phrase anti science in this very thread, go on now Harry tell us how you are being wronged. WV REPUBLICAN

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

our WV republican Fraud wishes to call me a liar, that's rich I tell ya

Posted 222 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly, and that title shows that you lied. The title refers to "an anti-science campaign," not anti-science individuals.

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry go ahead and cast your stones. We need look no further than the title of you thread that you started.

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry go ahead and cast your stones. We need look no further than the title of you thread that you started.

Posted 222 days ago.

mythravere

Now I am going to sit back and chortle as Ithink and her ilk strut about like they got a chip on their shoulder.

heheheheheheheheheheh!!!!!!!

Posted 222 days ago.

mythravere

All that study proves is that the positions on science that the Tea Party types hold are born from the guidance issued forth by their corporate handlers.

If they comprehend science so well then why do they reject its findings so readily.

I've said it before and this shows it full well that facts mean nothing to them.

Posted 222 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit

You’re not telling the truth when you say I’ve called people anti-science. You know that’s not the truth because we’ve been over this ground before. I challenged you to show where I called any INDIVIDUAL anti-science, as opposed to STATEMENTS and CAMPAIGNS. You couldn’t name a single instance.

And now you repeat your falsehood. You’re using a classic technique of liars: repeat the lie over and over, and hope people will believe it

Posted 222 days ago.

It is not at all hard to find, Kendall. Greta and Meghan Kelly both gave details last night. Both are reputable lawyers. Here you are.Bing has other choices, I did not try google.

h ttp://w ww.examiner.c om/article/taxpayers-spend-400k-to-study-the-cognitive-abilities-of-the-tea-party

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

I don't care what anyone believes Kendall but as I said, when you call people who are skeptical about climate science, anti science (see title of thread) and also deniers( a derogatory term) you really should be consistent in your approach. Then to reject all of anthropology, geology etc due to blind faith stinks of hypocrisy. Some of the historical data that climate modeling relies on also disproves the biblical view of the age of the earth????.. so pick and choose.

Posted 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

No Kendall, but you don't call skeptics anti science deniers if you also reject scientific proof when it suits a person. It's called hypocrisy.

Posted 222 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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