Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
Latest Post:
Started By:
6 hours ago.
by harryanderson

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


"I tossed out the N word which is not one I use. You would assign certain character flaws to me for using the language of racists."

No I wouldn't assign any character flaws to you. I'd conclude that you have done an unwise thing, and you probably agree with that assessment. We all do unwise things from time to time.

There's a big difference between attributing fundamental characteristics to people and describing their behavior.

Posted 485 days ago.


"the socialist redistribution drum."

To be clear. I have proposed no such program. Go back and re-read my comments about problem-solving.

Personally, I lament that some have loudly predicted dire consequences unless we take drastic action, and that others have loudly predicted dire consequences if we take any action.

Posted 485 days ago.


"Don't be obtuse, you know that the phrase anti science campaign is a pejorative. The left likes to frame folk like me as nNeanderthals that are flat earthers if we don't march to the socialist redistribution drum."

Again, I don't intend to frame anybody. I characterized an argument, not a person. Go back and read my comments about Cuccinelli, who is a visible actor in the campaign to which I referred.

Nowhere did I call you a neanderthal or flat-earthed.

Besides, I am not am representative of any left. I represent myself.

Posted 485 days ago.


"If you would consider your Sunday sermon an anti science campaign, I would cede that."

Sure. Why not? The Bible contradicts many things that scientists believe.

Posted 485 days ago.


Please believe that I didn’t mean to offend you, Tiredofit. I try to avoid offenses because they preclude rational dialogue. I consider it constructive to compete on the field of ideas but, like competition on the athletic field, competition on the idea field is more constructive when the contestants avoid harming one another.

Since you have clearly stated that you consider the term “denier” offensive, I’m all the more convinced that I should avoid it. I can easily express my thoughts with other words.

Lol. I guess I’m being “politically correct” here. Oh, well.

Earlier, you seemed to take umbrage at the phrase “anti-science campaign.” Do you also consider that a pejorative?

Posted 485 days ago.


Of course I’m a denier. I deny lots of things. For instance, I deny that anyone has intrinsic authority to dictate what language I use or to manipulate me into knowingly putting others down.

I consider the terms “denier” and “denial” pretty neutral. However, they seem to offend some folks here. So in the spirit of love, peace, kindness, goodness, and gentleness, I’m going my yield right to write as I choose.

I will no longer use the terms denier and denial here.

Posted 487 days ago.


Tiredofit has a point: some of the proposed solutions to anthropogenic global warming involve possibly harmful wealth-distribution schemes.

Let’s do all things decently and in order.

Defining a problem and proposing solutions to it are two separate steps in the problem-solving process. One must first define the problem by identifying its scope and potential harm before proposing solutions.

Both rash radicals who propose drastic solutions too early and science deniers have distorted the problem-solving process.

We do have a problem. However, I’m not satisfied that it requires immediate drastic, possibly harmful action.

We should neither institute immediate worldwide wealth distribution like some radicals want to do nor hinder the definition process like some deniers do.

We should take small steps and encourage the scientists to continue studying.

We should shun both leftist redistribution and rightist denial.

Posted 487 days ago.

The anti science campaign is a clone of the war on women. All baloney, and no bread.

People who don;t go along with the unproven myth of man made climate change, are no more anti science than Ben Franklin was.

Posted 487 days ago.


And of course someone will say the left does the same. Maybe. But not to the degree with which the right is mucking up progress.

Since 2008 goal number one has been to resist anything Obama and the left brings to the table. Doesn't matter what it is. Even if its something the right had thought of before they will flip on it if the left agrees to it and wants to move forward on it.

Contrarians to the core!

Posted 487 days ago.


My main point isn't so much about whats not being done on the climate change front but more about the dishonest positions the right takes on the issue.

The right is so inflexible with their positions that it is actually doing more harm than good.

They'd rather just sit and squat on an issue blaring out NO! than actually having any kind of debate on the issue to reach any kind of understanding.

It seems they are so power hungry that they'd rather see nothing happen than any progress take place that could be credited to the people across the aisle.

Its disgusting and I'm rather tired of seeing our government just sit around doing nothing while the country suffers.


Posted 487 days ago.


Sorry but I disagree with a large amount of the policies the left puts forth in regards to dealing with the issue of climate change.

I dont believe in carbon taxes.

I am sceptical of whether or not we can stop climate change. I lean more to adapting to it than trying to stop.

I also do not agree with just stopping current power generation methods like coal as some on the left have put forth. Namely because I feel that due to the current economic slump this country is in taking actions that will drive up energy costs is foolish and I actually care about the people who work in coal mines etc. For a lot of those folks working in the mine and being supported by people that do is the only means of income for them.

I also understand and respect that many see coal mining as their heritage and take pride in having generations of family members in the mines.

Posted 487 days ago.


I hate groupthink.

Posted 487 days ago.


Back on topic

Fox News has participated in the anti-science campaign, according to a study conducted last fall by the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS). UCS wrote,

“Over a recent six-month period, Fox News Channel representations of climate science were misleading 93 percent of the time (37 out of 40 citations).

“Representations featured broad dismissals of the reality of human-induced climate change, disparagement of scientists, mockery of climate science as a body of knowledge, and the cherry-picking of facts and studies to cast doubt on established climate science.”

htt p://ww w.ucsusa.or g/news/press_release/media-climate-science-event-0340.html

Notice the techniques UCS attributed to Fox: “disparagement” of individuals, “mockery,” and “cherry-picking of facts and studies.”

I call these techniques anti-science.

Posted 488 days ago.

I normally don't get into the climate change debate, mostly because the only science either side wants to believe is that which props up the believe that is mandated to them by their higher ups. Despite what Myth would have you believe, the left is just as bad as the right in that they are not allowed to disparage the position taken by the national party no matter how many legitimate questions are ask.

Posted 488 days ago.


And global warming theories aren't science?

Selective belief breeds those kind of thoughts!

Straight up and no arguing about it.

Believing man has an impact on the climate is not a position a rightwinger is allowed to have.


Could there be a more dishonest and ignorant way of thinking than that?


Posted 489 days ago.


The problem with "conservatives" is that they will never admit when they are wrong. Once a position is taken they "stay the course" regardless of the facts.

Another problem is that a lot of conservatives are moral supremacists.

They are to issues of belief and morality what a racist is to issues of race and nationality.

Simply meaning if you aint "colored" like they are then you aint nothing to them!

I was in a library once and this lady for some odd reason proclaimed with great boisterous pride that SHE was an EVANGELICAL to the librarian.

When you hold yourself above others you aint nothing but a solid waste outlet of a human body!

And what do we see more often than not?

The right parading around on their high horse like their crap dont stink and everyone else is the problem.

The current batch of comments shows that plainly.

Posted 489 days ago.



Welcome to the group that quotes the Bible on this forum.

And thank you for that quote! It’s always helpful for us to remember that our gifts and power do not come from us. They come from God. We should remember with humility that we’re nothing apart from God.

And that same God has removed all guilt from us and exalted us. What mercy. Truly God is worthy of being exalted.

Again, thanks for reminding us of who God is and who we are.

Posted 489 days ago.

I love science. I do not consider man made global warming theories to be science. It is hogwash.

Harry this verse from Luke reminds ne of your writings. "..... For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and he who humbles himself will be exalted.”

You spout Bible verses and act as though you are the only one who lives by them.

Your exalted opinion of your religion here on a political forum is intrusion of your beliefs. It does not show that you honor others freedom of religion.

You can shine your light by example instead of intruding your preaching where it does not belong. Find a street corner.

Posted 489 days ago.


Now let’s talk about my denying history or saying it is incomplete. The Bible says history is incomplete. The Bible talks about a final judgment that has not yet taken place.

The Bible says, “And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.”

Since God hasn’t done that for all of us yet, I’d say that the history of man is incomplete.

Thanks again for asking these questions.

Posted 489 days ago.


I’m okay with you not discussing your religion. I discuss mine because it informs all my opinions, political or otherwise. I can no more separate my religion from my attitude toward government than you can separate your skepticism and observation from your attitude toward government.

And you’re quite right. What I see in history, what I learned about the foundations of America in school, and what my common sense tell me all contradict what the Bible says. So I must choose which to believe. I choose to believe the Bible. Such is faith.

And I benefit from that faith. When God says a ruler is “God’s minister to (me) for good,” God assumes responsibility for making that come true. Therefore, I don’t have to live in fear of or be angry at the government. God frees me from fear and anger, and I enjoy life much more.

I don’t “trust govt,” but I certainly trust the God of the Bible.

Posted 489 days ago.

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
Remember my email address.