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
66 days ago.
by slinky
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

"Kurt Schlichter..."

Sorry...not evidence, just more opinion. Another fail on your part Tired.

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

"you don't offer up your real name either"

And you are therefor incorrect again. Kendall is my last name. I've also written many letters to the editor using my name.

In the end, you don't use your real name because I gather you are a coward.

Posted 837 days ago.

harryanderson

Just the other day, Tiredofit, I said I didn't think your bullying tactics reflect your true personality. And today you return to name-calling and, incredibly, try to bully me into leaving this forum!

I'm sorry, but I'm inclined to decline your invitation.

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

Tired why don't you contribute to the paper where you live and stop polluting our forum with you propaganda.

I can say this because there is no evidence that you are actually from this area. Now if you would feel free to offer up your real name...

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

Now when those who say that the global rise in temps are not do to man, they offer nothing to show that their side is correct.

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

I have seen no false premise on here. When Harry or others say that the overall temperature of the Earth is going up, they back it up with actual data.

When they say that CO2 is a green house gas, they back it up with science.

When the science says that global temps will go up, they have been largely correct.

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

Ithink, Which of these people are from Chicago and have taught Constitutional Law? Barack Obama or Jonathan Turley

The answer is both but why are you siding with Turley?

I will admit that Turley is consistent. He was against President Bush's warrantless domestic surveillance program and was in favor of Clinton's impeachment for his abuse of executive privilege.

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

@Ithink- What has the President done that is unlawful? If he had, obviously the other 2 branches of govt would have stepped in but have they?

Turley said, "I happen to agree with many of President Obama's policies, but in our system it is often as important how you do something as what you do."

So why isn't the other two branches doing something then if Obama is wrong?

Posted 837 days ago.

Kendall78

"I intended to just ignore your post.."

It's always easy to ignore questions, it difficult to answer questions. You just keeping to that easy road.

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

Yea. Notice how Tiredofit always directs the discussion onto the funding angle.

Seems to be the only argument he has.

One thing about it. Its the type of topic that can be highly manipulated.

Its all heresay and blind assumptions.

Posted 837 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink,

I’ll explain this again, since you seem to have a hard time grasping it.

Climate is a series of weather events observed over a period of time, usually decades or centuries. Weather is one event.

Let’s try it this way: I once caught a Northern Pike at the mouth of Decker’s Creek, which, at the time, was a sickly acidic mine-waste carrot-looking orange. By no means did I consider the Monongahela a good place to catch Pike. I probably could have fished there from now until this day and never seen another.

Hopefully, this will clear up some of your obvious confusion.

Posted 837 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit is trying to gouge out your eyes so you can’t see the plain truth. To do so, he’s using a dishonest rhetorical trick called “false premise.”

In a false premise, the dishonest party bases his or her argument on unproven assumptions, or premises.

Tiredofit’s argument would be honest if we accept his premise: the government grants money to support the IPCC. He wants you to assume that it does. Don’t. He has to prove it or his argument is invalid.

Keep your vision clear. Don’t let them gouge out your eyes with false premises.

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

As I have said before extra heat equals an addition to the energy that is present in the atmosphere. It means that through increased evaporation due to heat their will be more moisture in the air. And what happens when a moisture laden air mass collides with a cold or arctic air mass.

SNOW! Weeeeee!

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

This weather doesn't bother me in regards to my beliefs of mans hand in causing the climate to shift.

Because I know that global warming does not mean that cold is just going to disappear.

The poles are and will still be cold and we will still see cold winters. We'll still see plenty of snowfall.

What we might see are wild shifts in seasonal weather patterns.

Its funny that those who disagree with global warming and its cause just can't come to terms with the fact of a warming planet and still seeing snow.

They think those things are mutually exclusive.

Oh well just another in a long long line of arguments.

Posted 837 days ago.

Who is desperate? The sky is falling warmers, of course.

Posted 837 days ago.

Another day of weather. It is not climate change, of course. It does seem to drain the brains of the warmers. Lots of laughs when people are suffering from the current lack of warming.

Posted 837 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit is comparing apples to oranges. In talking about “purchasing science,” the real point is purchasing results.

In my citation, receiving money depends on results: to “emphasize the shortcomings of (the 2007 IPCC report.)”

He cited what the government will spend “global warming research” this year. He would have you overlook the real point—purchasing results.

I cited an example where money would be paid on the condition the receiver UNDERMINE the IPCC. In contrast, he cited no examples where government money will be paid on the condition the grantee SUPPORT the IPCC. It’s ridiculous to even think the current House would appropriate money for such a grant.

One cannot honestly compare money spent reducing the uncertainty to money spent creating doubt about the IPCC 2007 result. To do so is comparing apples to oranges, and shows the counter climate change movement’s “enormous frustration” with “the scientific debate.”

Desperate folks distort the dope.

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

Oh my! I just thought of the perfect name for it.

Drum roll.....THE IMBECILICUS!

Whew boy that should get your juices flowing eh?

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

Oh by the way just for kicks let me tell you something.

If I were the tin foil hat wearing type of person I wouldn't wear a tin foil hat.

No I'd use my brain and ingenuity to build a hat out of wire mesh of various sizes that surrounded my entire head. I would then engineer special cooper soles for my shoes so that I could then ground my hat out properly. A wire running up each leg that would then tie in with a single wire going up my back to the hat should prove to be a good design.

Ever heard of a faraday cage? Thats what would be my inspiration.

So chew on that! Whahahahahaa!

Posted 837 days ago.

mythravere

I bet if I were to meet you thatsabsurd I would quickly find out that you are a mouth breather!

Posted 837 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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