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
6 days ago.
by mythravere
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

My beliefs are rooted in common sense, observation and a healthy skepticism of Governments in general. My religious beliefs also come into play.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

Pay no attention to Nancy, he has been in OK servicing a glory hole I suppose.

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s why I don’t consider Mr. Cuccinelli anti-science. Suppose Mr. Cuccinelli’s mechanic tells him he needs to replace his bald tires because research has found that tires need tread to keep water from getting between the rubber and road, therefore greatly lowering the coefficient of friction between rubber and road. I imagine Mr. Cuccinelli would accept that scientific explanation and buy new tires.

So is Mr. Cuccinelli “anti-science”? I say he isn’t. His position on the one issue is anti-science and his position on the other issue is pro-science.

That’s why I consider it important to separate a person from his position. Thanks for letting this point come out.

So, Tiredofit, I have answered your question. Will you answer my last question? Let me repeat it. Again, what is the source of your beliefs?

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Your last question was, “Just who is the ubiquitous anti science people you refer to?”

I’m very glad you asked that because it gives me the opportunity to make a critical point.

As befits my custom, I don’t call people names. I said there was an anti-science campaign. I didn’t say there were anti-science people. I try to evaluate claims and actions; I try not to judge people. Let me illustrate.

I would consider Ken Cuccinelli’s campaign against Michael Mann anti-science. I agree with the UVA directors, who answered his subpoena, “Mr. Cuccinelli’s investigation, unless based on a much more substantial body of evidence than is apparent, could inappropriately inhibit the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and thus limit the progress of science.”

While I consider Mr. Cuccinelli’s ACTION anti-science, I do not consider HIM anti-science.

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry, the trifecta won't answer your questions, why in the world would you offer them answers to their circular logic questions?”

Because I’m happy to share my opinions and subject them to scrutiny.

Read the discussion. You might find it revealing.

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

I look forward to answering your question. Just hang on for a couple of hours until I get back at my desk.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

Still waiting for am answer to my last question

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

Also, I am not anti-science. I don’t deny science. I don’t think it’s a “hoax.” I think it’s incomplete on many things, including climate science.

As an aside, I think God means science to be incomplete. I doubt God will give sinful humans complete scientific knowledge. They would use it for evil. In the Tower of Babel incident, God scrambled languages so that people wouldn’t learn how to build a tower to heaven. God said, “…now nothing they propose will be withheld from them.”

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

Just who is the ubiquitous anti science people you refer to?

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

You write, “I have the same right to doubt as you.” Of course you do, and, when you post here, I might question your doubts. I give you the right to question my doubts.

I’ve given reasons for my doubts. Will you give reasons for yours? Again, what is the source of your beliefs?

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, I didn't call you anti-science or anything. Earlier, you cited the title of this thread. Read it again. It says, "the anti-science propaganda campaign."

If you're in that anti-science propaganda campaign, it's because you chose to go there. I didn't put you there.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

So next time you create a topic calling we skeptics Anti science, remember your own rejection of scientific consensus.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

If I am anti science so are you and THAT has been my point all along.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

Without being called anti science

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

Is it important where my beliefs come from or can you admit that my doubting of science is no more conspiracy related than yours. My doubts are just as relevant as yours and I have the same right to doubt as you.

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

“Explain why you reject science when it does not fit your preconceptions.”

It’s not my preconceptions. It’s what the Bible says.

I repeat. I believe the Bible over scientists.

Any preconceptions I may have come later. And believing worldwide conspiracy theories comes later still. That’s the so-called corner into which I’ve backed myself.

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

Correction time. I wrote, "Would you care to that with us?"

It should read, "Would you care to share that with us?"

Posted 428 days ago.

harryanderson

“You deny science by your own admission its faith, if I deny science, its conspiracy and propaganda.” (sic)

For the first part of that, my faith. Yes, my faith in the Bible does cause me to reject science that contradicts the Bible, or, to state my position more accurately, to consider such scientific knowledge incomplete.

Now for the second part, or you rejecting science. Let’s assume you’re like me, and you have a faith or system of beliefs that causes you to reject the science of climate change. Would you care to that with us?

After all, I have gladly and repeatedly stated where my beliefs come from. What is the source of your belief?

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

If your wondering what that is right behind you, it is the corner you have backed yourself into.

Posted 428 days ago.

Tiredofit

You deny science by your own admission its faith, if I deny science, its conspiracy and propaganda. Why is my mind not able to discern what I feel is true an a lie just like you? Do you think you are somehow better suited to analyze science than I?

Posted 428 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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