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
10 hours 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

harryanderson

Why won't you talk about the rising sea levels mentioned in Kunectdots' reference?

Posted 369 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry what do you have to say about Wooly mammoths?”

I say they are gigantic unshaven straw men.

In a discussion, one invokes a straw man when one misrepresents an opponent’s position, usually to deflect attention away from his or her own inability to respond to the opponent’s actual position.

It’s like a baseball pitcher could project an image of a ball to appear alongside the real ball he has pitched. Hopefully, the batter would swing at the image instead of the real ball.

I’m not swinging at wooly mammoths or any of the other distracting images you have projected this morning.

Nobody here has invoked Al Gore as an authority.

Nobody here has quoted the World Socialist Website as an authority.

Nobody here has proclaimed friendship with the Defense of Marxism website.

Wooly mammoths, Al Gore, Socialism, Marxism. Ball four.

Why won’t you pitch one in the strike zone, Tiredofit? Why won’t you talk about the impacts of the rising sea levels mentioned in Kunectd

Posted 369 days ago.

Tiredofit

Last quote from DEFENSE OF MARXISM website. See what your friends are saying myth

Posted 369 days ago.

Tiredofit

For environmental issues to be addressed, the development of society must be planned. However, we cannot plan what we do not control, and we cannot control what we do not own. For example, how could we even begin to build a sustainable supply of energy when the electricity industry, mines, and water companies are privately owned, operating solely to make profit? These businesses must be brought into public ownership, and operated democratically. But in and of itself, public ownership of utilities industries would not solve the problem – after all, in the post war period in Britain all of these industries were nationalised. In order to direct investment, private ownership must be eliminated in the banking, insurance and financial sectors. This would allow the proper level of investment in new technology, the development of agriculture, and the development of long term planning. Only then would society’s resources be able to be consciously planned, for the benefit of all.

Posted 369 days ago.

Tiredofit

The only solution is the marshaling of the world’s resources in a planned and rational manner. The full force of human technology and ingenuity must be brought to bear to avoid an environmental disaster. There must be a restructuring of energy generation, industrial and agricultural production, and transport infrastructure to lower carbon emissions. This can only take place when the international working class, the vast majority of humanity, takes control of the levers of society to run it for social need, rather than private profit. In a word, the precondition for attacking global warming is socialism. FROM WORLD SOCIALIST WEBSITE.

Posted 369 days ago.

Tiredofit

Im sorry that Al Gore is an inconvenient truth for you. Just ignore the fact that many species have come and gone or evolved with a changing climate over MILLIONS OF YEARS before man ever arrived on the scene (sorry Harry). Myth, you very much want to believe and that's fine, I wont get between you and your religion. Ignore that giant ball of fire out there about 93 million miles away.

Posted 369 days ago.

mythravere

Its always about Al Gore. Goodness what stupidity and willful at that.

Just admit that the facts mean nothing to you. Your deciding factor revolves around it being an issue that people on the left hold as being true therefore you can't admit it has being true that man has a hand in climate change.

Just ignore the fact that billions of tons of co2 have been put back into the atmosphere.

Posted 369 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO WHAT? Wooly mammoths no longer roam the planet, species adapt or even become extinct due to a changing planet. Has nothing to do man as much as you and Al GORE want to believe it. Harry what do you have to say about Wooly mammoths?

Posted 369 days ago.

mythravere

There are reports that some places are seeing trees and animals that are NOT typically from those areas growing and living there.

Uggh! Edit doh!

Posted 370 days ago.

mythravere

In fact we are already seeing shifts in plant and animal life. A warmer world could make this area more favorable to animals that live south of us. The same for the north like Canada. There are reports that some places are seeing trees and animals that are typically from those areas growing and living there.

Posted 370 days ago.

mythravere

Seriously? Yes the planet was livable. But I am assuming your post is an attempt at saying we shouldn't even care about Co2 levels since things were ok way back when.

There is a huge issue with that. Namely the simple fact that at this current point in time our world wide ecology is adapted to certain specific parameters in the respective environments that have been following a set norm for a long period of time.

A warming world upsets those norms. A quickly warming world will throw those norms in disarray and may/will cause changes on a timescale that the flora and fauna of the various ecologies can not adapt to.

So how many plants and animals are adapted to survive with a climate that was present 32 million years ago?

Some would survive. But we would see massive dies offs in all environments on this planet.

Posted 370 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s one such warning from a July 29 article:

“A rise in sea levels threatens the viability of more than 1,400 (US) cities and towns, including Miami, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville, unless there are deep cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, says an analysis out Monday.”

htt p://ww w.usatoday.co m/story/news/nation/2013/07/29/sea-level-rise-cities-towns/2593727/

Again, thanks for bringing this out.

Posted 370 days ago.

harryanderson

Kunectdots,

Thanks for pointing this out. It demonstrates one very good reason why we should be concerned about global warming.

The blog to which you refer contains a piece of information that is highly relevant to today’s situation, to wit:

“The Eocene world was notably different from the modern one. Though the land masses that would become the modern continents are discernible, they differ from their modern counterparts in both shape and position. As described in The Resilient Earth, this was partly due to higher sea-levels and the ongoing breakup of Gondwanaland.”

Many have warned about the “higher sea-levels” that accompany global warming. Higher sea levels threaten much of the world’s very expensive coastal infrastructure.

Posted 370 days ago.

Kunectdots

An interesting article entitled "CO2 & Temperature During The Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" can be found at; h ttp://theresilientearth.c om/?q=content/co2-temperature-during-middle-eocene-climatic-optimum

I found the suggestion that CO2 levels may have been 50X higher 32 million years ago, and yet the Earth would have been very "livable", as fascinating. Today's atmospheric CO2 level of .04% would have been approaching 2% during the Eocene Period. AND THERE WASN'T COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT IN SIGHT.

Goodnight Al Gore, wherever you are!

Posted 370 days ago.

moderation

Who is Paris Hilton? (:

Posted 370 days ago.

Tiredofit

Ha! Politics is the ultimate in reality TV and about as phoney. Obama was presented to us by the media as a celebrity and they are preparing to remake Hillary in a similar manner with the upcoming mini series. Before you pat us all on the back for being above all the daytime drama, take another look. We are not distracted by Paris Hilton's latest shoes, but we are by equally meaningless crap.

Posted 373 days ago.

mythravere

One thing about posting and gripping at each other that people might not think of is this.

At least we care. That goes for all of us on this board.

There are people in this nation who are of no opinion on the issues that affect them. Their only concern is what directly affects them on a day to day basis. And I dont think anyone will disagree with me that at least we aren't making our number one concern what goes on in the lives of celebrities and having our senses dulled with reality tv etc.

At least we give a dang to argue about real issues instead of filling our lives with stupid superficial drama.

At least thats how I see it. I'd rather argue till I was red in the face with someone on an important issue rather than talk for one second about the Kardashians or whatever.

Just my two cents.

Posted 374 days ago.

mythravere

Adversarial:Involving or characterized by conflict or opposition or simply meaning opposed.

Posted 374 days ago.

Tiredofit

This is all of our world and we all have an absolutely equal interest in it. To asign my beliefs with some desire to destroy the planet is asinine at best. I have no oil holdings or coal reserves. There must be a reason I believe as I do when I too have children and grandchildren that must survive here. How could it be that I desire to destroy the earth for them? Well clearly I do not have such a desire.

Posted 374 days ago.

Tiredofit

And harry, who said this was adversarial?

Posted 374 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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