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
98 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

mythravere

Cal Thomas=conservative columnist=me disregarding anything he has to say.

Find a source that is apolitical in its operations and then I will give it a look.

Posted 867 days ago.

Read Cal Thomas today. The global warming cult is being exposed as a money making farce every day.

Posted 868 days ago.

harryanderson

I certainly hope that’s true. I’d rather not be forced to radically change our way of life.

I looked at the Fox News article by McKelway. Unfortunately, it contained no link to the actual study, which, according to him, “was done under the auspices of the Heartland Institute.” McKelway doesn’t even state where the study was published.

The fact that the highly-political Heartland Institute apparently paid for the study makes me a little skeptical.

Nevertheless, one can hope that the direst predictions won’t happen. Unfortunately, some in the popular press have exaggerated the direst predictions, and this is just as harmful as those in the popular press who have claimed that climate science is a hoax.

Posted 875 days ago.

mythravere

Everyone does it to some degree. People like animals run in herds. And like animals few stray outside their chosen herd.

Posted 889 days ago.

harryanderson

I have been guilty of mistrusting others because of a group to which they belong.

Posted 889 days ago.

mythravere

A perfect example of that is in how Tiredofit dealt with Harry. Harry conveyed that he was a member of Tiredofits group. Since Harry has beliefs that Tiredofit takes issue with Tiredofit tired to finger Harry as a fraud etc.

Fear of going against the will of the group is what keeps people like Tiredofit in lockstep with the positions of the group he calls home.

It is not about what is right and wrong nor what the facts say.

Posted 889 days ago.

harryanderson

Prominent commenters on both sides of this debate have an anti-science bias.

Climate change skeptics say acceptors are irrational and acceptors say skeptics are irrational.

Dan Kahan of Yale Law School wrote in Nature:

“If anything, social science suggests that citizens are culturally polarized because they are, in fact, too rational — at filtering out information that would drive a wedge between themselves and their peers.”

“Positions on climate change have come to signify the kind of person one is. People whose beliefs are at odds with those of the people with whom they share their basic cultural commitments risk being labelled as weird and obnoxious in the eyes of those on whom they depend for social and financial support.”

ww w.nature.co m/news/why-we-are-poles-apart-on-climate-change-1.11166

In other words, peoples’ groups influence their opinions more than empirical evidence.

Posted 889 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

ust wondering what the latest imbecile idiocy the Globewarmers are spouting now.

LOL What a group if idiots.

Posted 890 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

ust wondering what the latest imbecile idiocy the Globewarmers are spouting now.

LOL What a group if idiots.

Posted 890 days ago.

mythravere

Fear happens to be one of the main influences on conservatives of Tiredofits stripe.

They fear so much. Fear isn't a bad thing though its just something that has to be kept in check.

Take a conspiracy theorist for example. The fear of what they think is in the works is so paralyzing that they can not and will not acknowledge a fact that counters an idea they hold.

Fear is the mindkiller.

Posted 895 days ago.

harryanderson

I knew of a boy whose family moved several states away. His new neighborhood had several bullies in it. The boy’s Dad warned him that he would have to fight, and advised the boy to take on the biggest bully first. When the biggest bully shoved him, the boy fought back and received a black eye for his efforts.

But the boy gained courage, which, according to Theodore Roosevelt, only comes from facing danger.

In the months afterwards, the lesser bullies in the neighborhood tried to pick on the smaller boy a few times, but they always weaseled out when he stood his ground.

Here’s the irony: Most of the bullies who weaseled probably could have whipped the boy, but they lacked courage, which put them at a disadvantage.

Courage keeps the mind productive, but fear paralyzes it.

As the Bible says, “We have not been given a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind.”

Posted 895 days ago.

mythravere

Yep billions of tons of carbon being released into the atmosphere does nothing to said atmosphere!

Another one bites the dust!

Posted 895 days ago.

mythravere

One could add a fifth box and pump some methane into it along with a mixture of normal air and Co2 that correlates with global co2 levels.

I am not sure how it could be done but it would be necessary to add humidity in the mix to replicate the effect of water vapor on the temperature along with the gas mix and how it affects the temps also.

Posted 896 days ago.

mythravere

And just so you know tired of it. The question of whether or not Co2 is indeed a heat trapping gas is testable even by folks like you and me.

Four plexiglas boxes and some co2 and o2 is all you need. Plus some temperature sensors.

I'd go into detail on how to do it but I gotta feeling you could care less.

Posted 896 days ago.

mythravere

"Harry I don't need to prove a thing to you"

I have told others on here that if you have the facts to back up your claims you have nothing to fear in putting those facts on the table.

Anyone that makes a claim and will not back it up is being dishonest.

Simple as that.

Posted 896 days ago.

harryanderson

“Since you cannot prove that there is a God and that the earth was formed in 6 days, and we all came from Adam and Eve I will say your belief is without merit as well.”

I didn’t ask you to believe these things. If you say that my belief “that there is a God” is “without merit,” you certainly have the right to do so!

My belief in God is a matter of faith. Matters of faith aren’t based on evidence, just as your belief that ““funding is dependent (sic) on those findings” is a matter of faith.

Posted 896 days ago.

harryanderson

True. You don't have to prove a thing to me.

Since you can't (or won't) provide evidence to support your claim, I'm at liberty to judge that no evidence supports your claim, and that said claim is unworthy of serious consideration.

Posted 896 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry can you prove they are not?” Of course not. I’m fully aware that it’s futile to try and prove a negative. That’s why I made no such claim. I can’t back it up.

You, on the other hand. did make a claim. You claimed that the “majority of government funded researchers who funding is dependant on those findings.”

Looking past the syntax, I take that to mean that you’re claiming the majority of government-funded climate researchers, in order to receive further grants, must find that humans are causing significant climate change.

Is that what you’re claiming? If not, what are you claiming? If so, can you back up that claim with evidence?

Posted 896 days ago.

harryanderson

“…majority of government funded researchers who funding is dependant on those findings.”

But you’ve already admitted, Tiredofit, that you can cite no climate science grants that are tied to results.

We dealt with this 127 days ago on the “Okay, gun fetish…” thread. At that time, you posted the following: “No one give grants with a condition attached as far as I know, but they do invest in research that has an outcome they like.”

So how can you now say “funding is dependent (sic) on those findings”?

Do you have new information that you didn’t have 127 days ago?

Posted 896 days ago.

harryanderson

I told you once that I would no longer employ the phrase “anti-science propaganda campaign,” Tiredofit. I certainly didn’t mean to offend you when I used it.

Maybe I should have called it “the propaganda campaign to discredit the conclusions of almost all the climate scientists who publish on the issue.”

It’s a bit wordy, but it may have been considered inoffensive. I’m all for trying to avoid giving offense.

Posted 896 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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