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
3 hours ago.
by Ohwiseone
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

"No warming in this century????"

Explain that please. Has the last 14 years been warmer on average than 1900-1914?

Yes or No Tired.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Govts keen on control and Marxist socialists masquerading as environmentalists wish to create a crisis that leads the lemmings, and u know who you are, clamoring to surrender you freedom for a little false security.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Climates change over time, that is not in dispute. Thank God for it as I don't like glaciers in my yard

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

No warming in this century???? Peer-Reviewed Survey Finds Majority Of Scientists Skeptical Of Global Warming Crisis

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

"The true scientist has no need for appeal to authority—he uses his expertise to give clear explanations for anyone seeking them."

Only problem with that is when the people "seeking" the explanation denies anything and everything the scientist is explaining to them.

Nothing can be explained to the person who doesn't want to understand and whose mind is already made up.

That'd be you tiredofit and others like you.

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

"In freshman logic, we are taught that this is the fallacy of “appeal to authority.” The true scientist has no need for appeal to authority—he uses his expertise to give clear explanations for anyone seeking them."

But aren't you appealing to the authority of Forbes Magazine? Eh? Tiredofit.

You appeal only to the authority that supports what you believe.

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

"3. They intimidate, rather than explain. Well they make lame attempts at it in some cases such as here."

LOL! Everything is intimidating to rightwingers.

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

"Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.

1. They use manipulative language

If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist."

Climate change deniers don't use manipulative language at all. (deadpan)

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

"The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?"

Doesn't matter what the percentage is if our emissions cause problems.

Not to mention the other way of arguing for less use of fossil fuels.

THERES ONLY SO MUCH LEFT!

So why not get started on developing renewable energy sources?

Posted 85 days ago.

Kendall78

Tired, are you simple?

"If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?”"

That is not a incoherent question. Do you even know the definition of "incoherent"?

"They intimidate, rather than explain."

Exactly how does this not apply to you and your vast array of insults?

"the fallacy of “appeal to authority.”"

That's all your arguments are on here Tired. You cite a scientist that you agree with and that's all you do. You don't explain anything.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

In freshman logic, we are taught that this is the fallacy of “appeal to authority.” The true scientist has no need for appeal to authority—he uses his expertise to give clear explanations for anyone seeking them.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

3. They intimidate, rather than explain. Well they make lame attempts at it in some cases such as here.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

.     They won’t admit when their theory fails

If it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is. It does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is – if it disagrees with experiment it is wrong. That is all there is to it.

– Richard Feynman

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Here are three ways the Climate Scientologists abuse science.

1.     They use manipulative language

If you are ever asked the incoherent question “Do you deny climate change?” you have found yourself a Climate Scientologist.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

The natural CO2 flux to and from oceans and land plants amounts to approximately 210 gigatons of carbon annually. Man currently causes about 8 gigatons of carbon to be injected into the atmosphere, about 4% of the natural annual flux. There are estimates that about half of man’s emissions are taken up by nature. But is that true? Are there variations in the natural flux? Could those explain the CO2 increase?

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

All the while ignoring the fact that we a pumping thousands of tons a day of carbon into the atmosphere that wasn't there 50..100 years ago. While stating that there hasn't been and will not be any changes from altering the chemical balance of the atmosphere.

correction

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

Whats it like Tiredofit knowing full well that your position on this issue is a direct result of politics. Not facts.

You can deny it all you want but you position that the world isn't warming is not supported by facts.

Heck you don't even have a consistent position on the warming. I've seen you bounce back and forth from saying there is not warming to saying the warming isn't caused by man. That its all natural in origin.

All the while ignoring the fact that we a pumping thousands of tons a day of carbon into the atmosphere that wasn't there 50..100 years ago. While stating that there has been and will not be any changes from altering the chemical balance of the atmosphere.

LOL!

Posted 85 days ago.

mythravere

Except its not a religion. Claiming that it is a religion is just a means of smearing those who believe that it is an issue that needs to be dealt with. And its a tactic meant to stop any kind of real debate on the issue while also sowing doubt about said issue.

People like Tiredofit are just tools in achieving that goal.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

The Church Of Climate Scientology: How Climate Science Became A Religion Forbes

Posted 85 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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