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
seconds 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

harryanderson

“You clowns think you have science on your side”

Sure we have climate science on our side: 97% of climate scientists agree.

Of course, that shouldn’t bother you, since you feel “it’s not a scientific discussion.”

Posted 291 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit I suppose science is on your side?

Good then share that science!

Yep not gonna happen.

Maybe when you drop your balls finally you'll man up and do it.

Posted 291 days ago.

mythravere

Here's the kicker for me. I know the dangers of coal. But I really enjoy the history of coal mining. I love reading about how they do it and how its used. Reading about how coal built many railroads fascinates me.

Heck I even love how coal smells when it burns.

Also there isn't a sweeter sight to me than a coal burning steam locomotive. Gives me goosebumps when I see them.

Posted 291 days ago.

mythravere

As U.S. Cleans Its Energy Mix, It Ships Coal Problems Abroad

Google that and go to the National Geographic article.

Take a look at that picture of the coal docks in Norfolk Virginia.

Burning a little bit of coal you say?

Goodness lol!

Ithink do you know how long that has been going on?

A little bit of coal!

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- I was being somewhat sarcastic in my comment. It was directed to Ithink and not you. You just got your comment posted before I got mine up.

I find a lot of people tend to use the "it's not that bad" argument but then they have no idea when something actually become bad enough.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

Too true Harry. I just wish that those who use authorities (even credible ones)as evidence would argue what the person said and not use the person's educational background or job as the primary reason to believe them.

Obviously it makes more sense to give a little more credence to climate change scientist who isn't peer reviewed that has a logical and thought out theory than a layman just looking at internet headlines.

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

I don't know the answer to your last question, Kendall. Experts have found that coal smoke contains substances that harm peoples' health, but I don't know how much a coal smoke a person can breathe without being harmed.

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

Like I wrote, Kendall we're free to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. I consider those who have published peer-reviewed papers in the field to have the highest expertise.

Another dimension of a witnesses credibility is her or his character.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

"a little coal burning is a non event."

How much has to burn to be a lot of coal?

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

"a little coal burning is a non event."

True, but large-scale burning of coal is harmful.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

I would also question the gernalized way we might be looking at expert testimony. Even in the court room, there is the Daubert standard. Merely being an expert without the blessing of one's peers might not make a person's testimony evidence.

Posted 291 days ago.

It is not scientific reality to predict, speculate, guess, or feel, about an unknown future. And what is past has no effect on future unexpected happenings.

In the total picture of the earth and its changes, a little coal burning is a non event.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

"but the testimony of authorities is legitimate evidence."

I agree except in general, Tired and Ithink rarely give good citation to the science the so called authority talks about. Merely saying an authority figure disagrees seems to count in their book.

It would be like Steven Hawking saying a black hole is in fact an invisible dragon gobbling up space and everyone says, "Well Hawking is saying it and therefor it must be true."

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, Tiredofit is inconsistent when he cites a scientist, since he's said it's "not A scientific discussion."

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

I meant evaluating his credibility (as well as his testimony).

Posted 291 days ago.

harryanderson

I don't know what you mean by "appeal to authority," but the testimony of authorities is legitimate evidence.

There are 3 types of evidence--statistics, examples, and testimony.

Tiredofit is ok in citing a scientist. And we're are ok in evaluating his testimony and citing the 97% of climate scientists who disagree with him.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

"Read the list of giant blunder predictions."

What does that prove? Only that predicitions can be wrong. It does NOTHING to prove that Climate Change isn't being effected by man.

"Foolish men believe false gods."

I believe in no false gods. Perhaps you could explain where you got such a notion.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall and myth are like donkeys braying in the wind. Hot is caused by man and cold is caused by man. Foolish men believe false gods.

Read the list of giant blunder predictions.

Roosters crowing about every little change in the earth being caused by insignificant man, is getting old to a lot of thinking people.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

"Trouble is we can't predict the weather ....climate...."

No, we can't. But then again, most people don't try to. Responsible scientists try to make predictions based on the information available. Common sense (that sadly might not be that common) tells us that these are not full proof predictions.

"in the future due to unexpected natural occurences."

There are natural occurences that effect climate change and no one has denied that. Globale warming/climate change proponents isn't the all or nothing crowd. That is the deniers.

The proponents for climate change knows climate doesn't exist in a static bubble. Volcanoes, solar flares and plate tectonics can effect overall climate. But what makes them different than the deniers is that they content that the dominant species on the planet contributes to that climate change through its activities.

Posted 291 days ago.

Kendall78

"Why do you keep saying" appeal to authority"?"

Because when you try to prove a point by simply saying Dr. so-and-so said it..that is an appeal to authority. You think that since you have some doctor that supports your position, it counts as evidence when it doesn't.

"You don't have one piece of information that an "authority" spoonfed you and says is true."

I read and take in the information and apply to the situation. I see if the argument is logical and applies to the evidence at hand. I also offer credible citation for that info. Mostly it would appear that you do not.

Posted 291 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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