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 Kendall78
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

I did google that, and got a link to THINK PROGRESS, would you call that an ubiased observer of truth?

Posted 347 days ago.

Tiredofit

What is your unbiased source?????

Posted 347 days ago.

Tiredofit

What is your source?> must have missed it.

Posted 347 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you impeach the source because he is a Conservative like Harry???? I found it very interesting.

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

Oh and did you read the comments on that article. Specifically read the post by Lianne Lefsrud. One of the authors of that study James Taylor references.

Hmmm...a good read also.

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

Please feel free to note how that is wrong.

Article titles for later searching will be GREATLY appreciated!

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

And then there is this.

"James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past – his new blog post is no different. ..."

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

Oh google this. James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees.

A quote from that article.

"The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem."

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

God dang! LOL!

That Article was written by James Taylor who has ties with the Heartland Institute a CONSERVATIVE and libertarian "think" tank!

Oh no conflict of interest there!

Posted 347 days ago.

Tiredofit

One interesting aspect of this new survey is the unmistakably alarmist bent of the survey takers. They frequently use terms such as “denier” to describe scientists who are skeptical of an asserted global warming crisis, and they refer to skeptical scientists as “speaking against climate science” rather than “speaking against asserted climate projections.” Accordingly, alarmists will have a hard time arguing the survey is biased or somehow connected to the ‘vast right-wing climate denial machine.’. SOUND FAMILIAR?

Posted 347 days ago.

Tiredofit

Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis(Forbes). Good read,

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

R1KRA8=Tinfoilhat

I responded the way I did because of past posts directed at me on a personal level.

Posted 347 days ago.

harryanderson

I realize that it's nearly impossible not to be labeled, or stereotyped by others.

However, I see no sense in doing it to myself.

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

And as you know thats when you get dismissed as a fraud.

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

Harry its near impossible to not be labeled. Speak your opinion and who ever is across the way reading it they will almost always respond to you like you are part of the party opposite to them if they disagree with you.

The vast majority of people are holed up in one of the two parties.

If you aren't in either of those groups then the ones in it dont really know how to deal with your opinion.

Posted 347 days ago.

mythravere

Grammar corrections the O'l standby when you got nothing better to say but still want to sling some mud! LOL!

Pardon me for offending your sensibilities!

Posted 347 days ago.

harryanderson

BTW, Mythravere,

I am not a "legitimate conservative." I don't attach ideological labels like "conservative" or "liberal" to myself.

Here's why:

I don't subscribe to all the positions to which those who call currently call themselves conservatives subscribe. If I call myself a conservative, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or another ideological label, I'm encouraging people to assign positions to me which aren't mine.

In short, I'd be stereotyping myself and letting others define me. Not a good thing.

Posted 348 days ago.

mythravere

Actually that "a person" didn't.

Posted 348 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth,

"The collective gas release (from the) vociferous ones" gets attention because it smells like it comes from a garbage diet.

Posted 348 days ago.

mythravere

The problem with the right is who's doing all the talking. It aint the level headed ones! You got nutcases and media born political pundits setting the tone. Everyone else gets drowned out in the collective gas release that comes from vociferous ones.

The same can be said of the left in some regards but the right lets it fly with a lot of intensity.

More than is warranted in fact.

And they just repeat it and repeat and repeat it...which happens to be a tactic that they chose to use.

Had a person tell me the other day that they can't talk to their brother about Obama because the brother gets so flustered over Obama.

I bet the brother watches Fox News.

Posted 348 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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