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
2 hours ago.
by mythravere
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

Ithink...lol...prove that I can't prove the claims that I am making!

Counter my claims with information that shows that I am wrong...and by extension the scientists are wrong.

HAHAHAHAH hilarious!

Posted 295 days ago.

There is no info about the future. Only guesses. Much info about the past cannot be proved.

You can say I murdered someone ten years ago and tbere is NO way I can prove I did not.

No one is obligated to disprove your wild claims. It is up to you to prove them, and you can't.

Posted 295 days ago.

mythravere

"I do find it odd that you three seem to think I owe you proof of anything."Tiredofit

Hey if you want to make yourself look like a fool by all means go ahead.

But when arguing an issue it is essential for both parties to be willing to lay down the facts of why they think they are right.

Unwillingness to do so just makes the person refusing to do so look like they don't know what they are talking about.

Of course we already knew that.

I mean if you had the info why wouldn't a person lay it out on the table for consideration?

It just goes to show that your angle Tiredofit isn't an informational one. Its all about the politics of resistance to the opposing party.

Posted 295 days ago.

Kendall78

"I do find it odd that you three seem to think I owe you proof of anything."

When one makes a positive claim, oddly enough..most people expect you to back it up with evidnece.

"The fact is the burden of proof is on YOU"

And you have been provided with evidence of it happening.

"and you have failed to convince me that you even understand the supposed evidence you are touting,"

We could give the same evidence to a dung beetle and just because they do not understand it doesn't make it not factual. What is also humorous is that you shouldn't care if we understand it at all. All you should care about is if you understand it.

"I have stated many times that I believe any change in climate IS a natural event PERIOD."

And that is a positive claim that should be backed up with evidence.

"I have history on my side."

No you don't.

Posted 296 days ago.

Kendall78

"I wanted you to see,again, that not all climate scientists agree with all the warming hysteria."

And I am glad that most scientists are not in that hysteria. It doesn't benefit anyone to be on the fringes when it involves a topic this big and important to humanity.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

No Tiredofit,

You don't have to provide evidence for what you say...

...not unless you want to convince somebody, that is.

Posted 296 days ago.

I seldom agree 100% with what anyone says. I wanted you to see,again, that not all climate scientists agree with all the warming hysteria.

As far as how old the earth is, I don't know. I am not a Bible expert. In translating from one language to another, words have different meanings. I believe " in the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth". How and how long, I don't know or care.

Now, I have some paint to watch dry.

Posted 296 days ago.

Kendall78

@Ithink- did you agree with Lindzen or not? And for curiousity sake...did you agree with it Tired. If you read any of it that is.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

I daresay myth can change his mind if he encounters credible evidence. As for Kendall, I know he can because I’ve seen it happen.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

I've not decided I can't be convinced. Just put forth the evidence and let me evaluate it.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

Thanks for bringing this subject up in the context of the Bible. We need to distinguish between sin and sinner. Even the best of us slip and do wrong, but we don't need to be condemned.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

If we can't judge works, or actions, we can't tell when we are wrong ourselves.

That's why I always aim to criticize a person's actions, rather than ascribe a bad characteristic to him or her.

Posted 296 days ago.

harryanderson

True. But I didn't judge you. I judged some of your posts.

If you feel you've been judged, it's not by me; it's by the Bible versus I cited. The Bible says that it's words are useful for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction.

Name calling is judging people, and that's not our job.

We should judge works against the Bible. By their works you will know them.

Posted 296 days ago.

This subject gets nore boring every day. The only reasons it has any importance whatsoever is the terrible loss of jobs and our wasted taxes caused by this cult of tree huggers and money grabbers.

Posted 297 days ago.

mythravere

Harry brings up a good point about political motivations influencing one's position on various subjects.

Posted 297 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit wrote, “Sounds llike harry is doing a little judging.”

He’s right. I judged some of his posts hateful.

Posted 297 days ago.

harryanderson

Like Kendall, I would like to know whether or not you share Lindzen’s views.

If you don’t answer in the negative, I guess it’s safe to assume you do share those views, since you took pains to cite the article about him.

Posted 297 days ago.

harryanderson

According to Ithink’s article, Lindzen believes the same thing Tiredofit does—that funding drives the consensus view. Lindzen and Tiredofit share another trait in this regard—they claim funding drives the consensus view but provide no evidence to back up that claim.

Posted 297 days ago.

harryanderson

The article further points to Lindzen’s ideological agenda by stating:

“But Lindzen, perhaps because of his safely tenured status at MIT, or just because of the contours of his personality, is a particularly outspoken and public critic of the consensus. It’s clear that he relishes taking on the “alarmists.’”

Posted 297 days ago.

harryanderson

The Drudge article also acknowledges that Lindzen has an ideological agenda:

“One frustrating feature of the climate debate is that people’s outlook on global warming usually correlates with their political views. So if a person wants low taxes and restrictions on abortion, he probably isn’t worried about climate change. And if a person supports gay marriage and raising the minimum wage, he most likely thinks the threat from global warming warrants costly public-policy remedies. And of course, even though Lindzen is an accomplished climate scientist, he has his own political outlook—a conservative one. “

I, too, say it’s frustrating—people shouldn’t let political considerations lead them to disbelieve (or overbelieve) the science of Anthropological Climate Change.

Posted 297 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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