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
19 minutes ago.
by Stillhere
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

"Just don't worry if I don't believe it."

I never worry about what fools say since the truth will always be the truth.

"Why try to convince me of something you have no proof of."

You are an untalented liar. Tired, you do not get to decide what is proof and what isn't. That is way above your paygrade. Proof has been offered and you either are too stubborn to accept it or too ignorant to understand it.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

"DO you have any PROOF that they are correct, again I cannot prove a negative as you so correctly stated. All your predictions and models have proven FALSE."

I have NEVER asked you to prove a negative. You say they lie and all I am asking you to do is to prove it.

Besides myself, there have been many people on here that have provide evidence that man has effected the earth's climate. You just won't accept it.

I have no models and have made no predictions. What you want is since the predictions have not panned out, that man made climate change is false which simply is not the case.

Think about it...those predictions were made based on available data. Regardless of the cause, the data was still the same and that is what the predictions were based on.

Posted 257 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit just admit that you do not want to believe man has a hand in changing the climate ergo that is the whole reason you object to the findings of the scientists.

I dont think you honestly care what the facts say. You see it as a gateway to socialism and that bunches your panties and well there's your position.

Posted 257 days ago.

mythravere

One tiny little bit of hearsay is the deciding factor for tiredofit!

Posted 257 days ago.

mythravere

" All your predictions and models have proven FALSE."

How do you know they are false?

Care to share the information?

If you don't then that pretty much means you are a smoke blowing troll.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

Going back to the quote in question, "So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate"

Do you know what the word "might" means Tired? Here is a hint, it doesn't mean it's a fact.

Again and again and again, do you have any real evidence that the vast majority of climate science that states that mankind is involved with climate change is lies?

Yes or no

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

I suggest you learn the art of using quotation marks. It would help you a great deal.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

But if you really like Dyson and will believe him then here is a quote, "One of the main causes of warming is the increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere resulting from our burning of fossil fuels such as oil and coal and natural gas."

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

National Climatic Data Center director Tom Karl, "It's critically important to compile a big picture....The signs that we see are of a warming world."

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

Freeman Dyson is a theoretical physicist and mathematician. What he is not is a climate scientists involved with NOAA.

He might know if findings are lies being told in the fields he works with but there is no evidence from him that is happening in regards to the research in climate change.

Try to avoid the scientists that are not climatologists.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

"that was the head of the noaa climate program ADMITTING climatology lies to get reactions and funding."

Umm..no. That was not said at all.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

"What made it change 20,000 years ago, as someone mentioned?"

Is what happened 20,000 year ago relevant to the change in climate in the last few centuries?

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

"Can't explain that away!"

You're right, you can't explain away that Dyson has an opinion on opinions.

Posted 257 days ago.

No one doubts that the climate changes. It always has and always will. What made it change 20,000 years ago, as someone mentioned?. It sure wasn't caused by burning WV coal.

Posted 257 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

" Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists."

Posted 257 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink, echoing Tiredofit, wrote, “Efforts to get big money grants have led to the distortion and falsifying of statistics.”

There sure has been big money offered—to disprove the IPCC 2007 report.

“Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.”

htt p://ww w.theguardian.co m/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

That’s following the money.

BTW: Did anyone ever claim this bounty?

Posted 257 days ago.

mythravere

" Once science loses complete credibility with the public"

That won't happen. Its only "losing" credibility with those who don't like what it says.

Making claims about the credibility of science is a tactic meant to undermine the influence of scientific authority.

The issue of man made climate change has been labeled a leftwing cause. Calling into question the science of that issue and the scientists themselves is a matter of rightwing policy now.

No compromise...they say....remember that. Acknowledging the veracity of something that is seen as a leftwing cause goes against the rule of no compromise. Doing so is tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy in the eyes of many a rightwinger. Especially rightwing media mouths.

Posted 257 days ago.

harryanderson

A prosecutor named Pruitt was deciding whether to charge a suspect, Lawyer Bink, with firing the fatal shot. Bink, presented testimony from 201 of his fellow lawyers saying he was a good lawyer.

Pruitt submitted Bink’s gun and the bullet to the world’s top 200 ballistics experts. 194 (97%) of them said Bink’s gun “unequivocally” fired the fatal shot.

Pruitt charged Bink with the crime. His assistant asked him why, since the testimony of 201 professionals in favor of Bink seemed to outweigh the testimony of 194 professionals on the other side. Pruitt said, “The lawyers don’t have the relevant expertise. When 97% of those with the most relevant expertise say Pruitt’s gun fired the fatal shot, the jury will see it as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot came from his gun.”

Posted 257 days ago.

We are in a new scientific dark age according to some articles I read. Science has been taken over by political ideology. Efforts to get big money grants have led to the distortion and falsifying of statistics. Once science loses complete credibility with the public, it will be hard to get back.

Forbes has an enlightening new article.

Posted 257 days ago.

Kendall78

Except my belief is backed up by facts where your belief is backed up by wishful thinking.

Posted 258 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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