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

mythravere

And dimwit what pray tell do you think they are uncertain of anyways? I guess using your logic when they point to uncertainty you think in your feeble mind it means the whole shebang?

But I am betting the uncertainty lies with the effects of global warming and the time scales in which they will take place. Plus the timescales of the needed actions to limit the effects of man made climate change.

Sheesh you take one little data point and use it to discount the whole issue.

Talk about dishonest.

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

All this arguing over bullchit he said she said bologna....but you still will not talk about the actual warming of this planet and what is causing it if man is not the cause.

Me thinks you pick your battle carefully.

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

So I guess you being "right" means the shipping lanes in the north that are opening up aren't really happening? Right? LOL!

He11 we're headed for a new ice age. Huck yuck!

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! You think you won this debate. Ha! Thats funny!

I guess the question now is how much of the science is the result of "funding" being got that way.

Probably a drop in the bucket compared to what energy companies have spent in trying to thwart this message.

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Hopefully, we can find some areas of agreement if you would like to reduce the scientific uncertainty. Unfortunately, I expect you to continue evading the question, even though I answered your question unequivocally.

We’ll see. For now, I have to get to work earning a living. I don’t get paid to opine about this.

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?”

No. I wouldn’t do it. Like I’ve said over and over, I’m not interested your political games. It’s a scientific discussion. It’s an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

Would you like to remove all doubt about the issue so we could cooperate?

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty, Tiredofit?

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

It's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product."

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Read again what you wrote.

You said they sought funding "to reduced the scientific uncertainty."

In other words, fill in the knowledge gaps you're always bringing up. Who can complain about that? Who doesn't want to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

I'll tell you who--those whose political, ideological, and cultural biases control them.

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

But she didn't link funding to results like you did. Do you have any examples where funding was linked to results? That's the claim you made.

You wrote, "results=funding."

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

But I know you won't. Just drop your insult and move along then.

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit you are such a fool. We can see all around us that the world is warming which begs that we make changes to how we consume energy because it is the use of that energy that is getting us into this issue.

But the energy problem is a double edged sword. Not only is the massive amounts of carbon we are emitting causing climate issue but that energy source is finite.

Renewables will take time to get them to the point where they can take over the load. Not to mention we need to consume less energy through better efficiency.

That reason right there is reason enough to start weaning ourselves off of carbon based energy.

But renewables...not as big as a profit making potential oh sorry not much funding potential with renewables.

I'd like to see your cowardly behind tackle the reasoning behind that.

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

Ok now that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is now time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Typing to dang fast.

Posted 279 days ago.

mythravere

Check mate? LOL! Hardly!

This is the place where I show your foolishness.

Ok not that we have established Tiredofit that scientists exaggerate(I am just going along with you one that one) it is not time for you to show us where and how much of the funding that scientists get is correlated to "exaggeration".

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Good catch, Kendall.

Even the climate scientist hyped by Tiredofit for political reasons believes, when she puts on her scientist cap, that atmospheric carbon contributes to global warming,

Another true believer, eh?

Tiredofit is hoisted by his own petard again.

That’s the bottom line, not politics.

Posted 280 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, Tiredofit, you show yourself, and distort what I wrote.

By saying “talking outside of her field,” I clearly meant unlearned in politics. You however, deceptively choose to ignore the qualification and focus on the catchall word unlearned.

Posted 280 days ago.

Kendall78

"My research experience and interests include the science and societal impact of air pollution. In particular, I focus on black carbon (BC) pollution, which is a by-product of incomplete combustion, both natural and anthropogenic. BC contributes to climate warming and is linked to a range of health problems, including premature mortality." (Monika Kopacz)

So Tired, you agree with her that black carbon contributes to global warming?

Posted 280 days ago.

harryanderson

We're talking past each other. I refer to the science, and you refer to the politics.

I refuse to be swayed by political hype.

I repeat: an overwhelming majority of the climate scientists most published in peer reviewed journals agree with the tenets of the IPCC.

That's the bottom line, not your politics.

Posted 280 days ago.

harryanderson

So here’s the genuinely important part:

Among those scientists most published in peer-reviewed journals and most cited, a large majority agree with the tenets of the International Panel on Climate Change.

These scientists are expressing their opinions within their fields of learning.

Posted 280 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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