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
25 days ago.
by Kendall78
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

Here's how the Bible instructs us.

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife."

A person doesn't have to be a Christian to see the wisdom in that.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

We don't need demonize one another.

Consider me and you, myth. We have opposite foundational principles. I'm a Christian and you're an atheist. We have debated that and neither of us has converted the other.

But for all that, we've never resorted to name-calling, and I've come to respect you. That's as it should be.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

I disagree. He is interested in winning. He's so interested in "winning" that he's willing to forsake common decency by calling others foul names. And even try to get other posters to attack one another.

Posted 326 days ago.

mythravere

Which leads into three possibilities in regards to your motivations.

You are wrong and know you are wrong but putting a show to save face.

You are just being argumentative and contrary just because you can.

Or you actually think you are right. Which given your style of discourse leads me to believe that if this is the case then you are insane.

Posted 326 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit the foundation of your position on this issue has so many cracks and voids in it. Its hilarious.

You must be mentally deranged to try and argue the way you do. Ignoring facts about this issue and about your motivations(you never address those). And then you demand we prove our supposedly false position while you have to prove nothing which according to your is the truth and is backed up by facts that you know while complaining we are misinformed. Meaning that you have a way to resolve this debate. Which showing that they are correct is the real point of any debater.

But you are obviously not interested in winning this debate because if you were you would have shown concisely why you are right.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

I try to get my information from neutral sources that appeal to reason, not emotion.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

I try to get my information from neutral sources that appeal to reason, not emotion.

Posted 326 days ago.

mythravere

And you are saying Tiredofit that the real..the true science is on your side.

LOL!

But their funding? It leads to no conflict of interest at all? LOL!

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

I like breathing clean air.

Posted 326 days ago.

mythravere

A neutral source is the actual scientists.

But who am I kidding you don't even trust the scientists. Which is funny because if what you say is true and there has been no warming a person would have to rely on scientists to show them that. Which is even funnier because in your case I am guessing that if they stated that you would then somehow look the other way and not question their funding.

LOL!

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

As we lower our use of fossil fuels, we'll breathe in less of the smog and soot they cause.

That's a good thing.

Posted 326 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Why wont you answer ? Are you ashamed ?? Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ????This is proof by your silence that your full of crap !

Posted 326 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Here is the research you deny exists ! !!! research that is not funded by our government ! ~~~~The dependence on fossil fuel energy sources since the industrial revolution has undoubtedly shaped economic prosperity for the developed world. However, an unfortunate by-product of fossil fuel combustion is the emission of carbon dioxide (CO2), an important greenhouse gas that is known to influence long-term climatic variations through its ability to absorb infra-red radiation.

Human emissions of CO2 have resulted in atmospheric levels higher than any period over the last 20 million years. The continued emission of CO2 will lead to widespread climate change related impacts. ~~Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) UNSW Australia, Sydney NSW 2052 Australia

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 326 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 326 days ago.

mythravere

Neutral sources will be the only proof that is considered.

You've dumped a heck of a lot of "proof" from rightwing sources on here.

Sorry but thats just not gonna cut it.

And more importantly its easy to ascertain the manner in which you conducted your "research". You just hopped around copy and pasting from whatever you thought had something to say that supports your cause.

Posted 326 days ago.

Kendall78

What would you consider to count as proof Tired?

Posted 326 days ago.

Kendall78

"You asked for research that is meaningful and that was provided"

No, it wasn't provided. This was neither research or meaningful. It was copy/paste from various less than savory source material.

Posted 327 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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