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
41 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

Curious Tired, since you think politics influences scientists to support Global Warming as being real. You must also accept the opposite that there are political entities that support those who deny that global warming is happening. Would this be correct?

Posted 832 days ago.

Kendall78

"I would say she knows both politics and science better than anyone here."

So since you admit that she knows more than you do about science, you would agree with her stance on carbon being a pollutant that effects global warming..right?

The only other option is for you to say no and show that you are just a stubborn child when it comes to this topic.

Posted 832 days ago.

Kendall78

"but she freely admits to exaggerating for political action and funding."

Soooo...she is correct until you don't agree with her. Yeah that's a mature and openminded way to be.

Posted 832 days ago.

luvthesouth

it sounds like you folks need to take a break and enjoy some of these banging pancakes i just whipped up. you just can't beat breakfast for lunch! sorry for the interruption... enjoy your discussion.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

"This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirection" Tiredofit.

You mean you being asked specific questions and either flat out refusing to answer them or saying it is us who have to prove what we are saying while you don't and/or bringing up topics like the past one that has little weight on this issue in the bigger picture.

You mean to tell me that isn't deflecting and misdirecting.

Ohhhhhhh! LOL! I smell a hypocrite.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

And dimwit what pray tell do you think they are uncertain of anyways? I guess using your logic when they point to uncertainty you think in your feeble mind it means the whole shebang?

But I am betting the uncertainty lies with the effects of global warming and the time scales in which they will take place. Plus the timescales of the needed actions to limit the effects of man made climate change.

Sheesh you take one little data point and use it to discount the whole issue.

Talk about dishonest.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

All this arguing over bullchit he said she said bologna....but you still will not talk about the actual warming of this planet and what is causing it if man is not the cause.

Me thinks you pick your battle carefully.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

So I guess you being "right" means the shipping lanes in the north that are opening up aren't really happening? Right? LOL!

He11 we're headed for a new ice age. Huck yuck!

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! You think you won this debate. Ha! Thats funny!

I guess the question now is how much of the science is the result of "funding" being got that way.

Probably a drop in the bucket compared to what energy companies have spent in trying to thwart this message.

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

Hopefully, we can find some areas of agreement if you would like to reduce the scientific uncertainty. Unfortunately, I expect you to continue evading the question, even though I answered your question unequivocally.

We’ll see. For now, I have to get to work earning a living. I don’t get paid to opine about this.

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?”

No. I wouldn’t do it. Like I’ve said over and over, I’m not interested your political games. It’s a scientific discussion. It’s an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

Would you like to remove all doubt about the issue so we could cooperate?

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty, Tiredofit?

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

It's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product."

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

Read again what you wrote.

You said they sought funding "to reduced the scientific uncertainty."

In other words, fill in the knowledge gaps you're always bringing up. Who can complain about that? Who doesn't want to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

I'll tell you who--those whose political, ideological, and cultural biases control them.

Posted 832 days ago.

harryanderson

But she didn't link funding to results like you did. Do you have any examples where funding was linked to results? That's the claim you made.

You wrote, "results=funding."

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

But I know you won't. Just drop your insult and move along then.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit you are such a fool. We can see all around us that the world is warming which begs that we make changes to how we consume energy because it is the use of that energy that is getting us into this issue.

But the energy problem is a double edged sword. Not only is the massive amounts of carbon we are emitting causing climate issue but that energy source is finite.

Renewables will take time to get them to the point where they can take over the load. Not to mention we need to consume less energy through better efficiency.

That reason right there is reason enough to start weaning ourselves off of carbon based energy.

But renewables...not as big as a profit making potential oh sorry not much funding potential with renewables.

I'd like to see your cowardly behind tackle the reasoning behind that.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

Ok now that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is now time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Typing to dang fast.

Posted 832 days ago.

mythravere

Check mate? LOL! Hardly!

This is the place where I show your foolishness.

Ok not that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is not time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Posted 832 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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