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
29 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

Kendall78

"Why all the insults?"

There have been no insults. If you willfully ignore facts, you are therefor ignorant. If you commit fallacies in your arguments, it can be claimed you are participating in shoddy research.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Believe as you like.

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

"Can you prove that the emails dont demonstrate fraud"

Can't prove a negative there chief. Nice try. Btw, you didn't answer my question. Was your answer a yes or no?

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Notice how nasty you are behaving? Why all the insults? Wow you are full of anger and hate. Why do you worry about what I believe?

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

"You guys really hate people that don't buy into this garbage. Myth compared me to nazis yesterday now you compare me to a halocaust denier."

Lie if it makes you feel better but I did not compare you to a holocaust denier. I comapred you method to theirs.

It is more than a little humorous that you don't show how I am wrong in this, you just show that you are offended. Oh well.

And I don't hate you at all. I just don't care for shoddy research and the way you cling to ignorance on the topic.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Can you prove that the emails dont demonstrate fraud. Yes. Or No

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

"Yet you chose the holocaust randomly"

Nothing random about it. Holocaust denial is a very well known example of bad debating practice. The methods used there are very comparable to how climate change deniers use. You are just playing offended drama queen card because you are focused on the wrong thing.

What is peer review? You wouldn't called the published works of actual climate change scientsist that are looked over by other climate scientists as being reviewed by peers? I provide the link, take the time to read it if you are capable.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

You guys really hate people that don't buy into this garbage. Myth compared me to nazis yesterday now you compare me to a halocaust denier. Man you are really losing it

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

I don't dismiss the cherry picked emails with little or no context. They simply do not counter the evidence available.

Again, when you can provide hundreds of climate scientists that say man isn't involved in claimate change...then you will be doing good.

Can you do this? YES or NO.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yet you chose the holocaust randomly, sure

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Define peer review

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

"That's the second time I have been compared to Nazis who put people in ovens"

Careful drama queen, I never compared you to the Nazi. I simply compared your habits as a denier to those that deny the holocaust.

Like you, they tend to deny everything they do not like, provide little to no evidence and commit appeal to authority quite often.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

Just dismiss the emails, nothing to see here, the Mann says it was the oil companies, good enough no proof needed.

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

Back on what it means to have a concensus. In a recent poll done by Naomi Oreskes shows that 97% of Climate Scientists believe that the current trend of climate change is influenced by mankind.

They came up with this study from 928 published papers on climate change. The news story: w w w.theguardian.c om/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2013/may/16/climate-change-scienceofclimatechange

The study: h tt p://iopscience.iop.o rg/1748-9326/8/2/024024/article

Tired, when you can provide 928 peer reviewed papers done by climate scientists that say that climate change is not at all influenced by man, then you might have something.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

And you believe Mann?

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

That's the second time I have been compared to Nazis who put people in ovens, wow you guys really will stoop to anything, little over the top dont ya think? I suppose I have I insulted your religion.

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

Climate scientist Michael Mann called the hacking of those emails were done by, " Agents doing the dirty bidding of the fossil fuel industry know they can't contest the fundamental science of human-caused climate change. So they have instead turned to smear, innuendo, criminal hacking of websites, and leaking out-of-context snippets of personal emails in their effort to try to confuse the public about the science and thereby forestall any action to combat this critical threat."

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

And out of all that blabber...NO EVIDENCE.

Tired, you are committing numerous appeal to authority. Just saying some scientist says something isn't evidence.

You need to have a consensus between scientists that specialize in climate change.

It's kind of tragic the way you behave. It reminds me of the Nizkor website that deals with Holocaust deniers. It's a vastly different topic of course but the methods that those deniers use is very similiar to what man made climate deniers use.

Posted 239 days ago.

Kendall78

"Climate is being made today."

Climate, like wetaher, is made everyday...just at varying speeds.

Posted 239 days ago.

Tiredofit

1939> Thorne/MetO: Observations do not show rising temperatures throughout the tropical troposphere unless you accept one single study and approach and discount a wealth of others. This is just downright dangerous. We need to communicate the uncertainty and be honest. 

<3066> Thorne: I also think the science is being manipulated to put a political spin on it, which for all our sakes might not be too clever in the long run.

<4755> Overpeck: The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guid[e] what’s included and what is left out.

Posted 239 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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