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
5 minutes ago.
by Ithink
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

“All my posts are appropriate dear Harry despite your limited frame of reference.”

You have a point, Tiredofit. You might say my frame of reference is limited. Its limited insofar as I’m much more concerned about how climate change will harm humans in the near future than I’m concerned about the extinction of wooly mammoths in the distant past.

Of course, you asked my opinion on wooly mammoths in the context of climate change when you posted, “Harry what do you have to say about Wooly mammoths?”

You may be more concerned about wooly mammoths than humans. I’m not.

Posted 433 days ago.

harryanderson

Why won't you talk about the rising sea levels mentioned in Kunectdots' reference?

Posted 433 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry what do you have to say about Wooly mammoths?”

I say they are gigantic unshaven straw men.

In a discussion, one invokes a straw man when one misrepresents an opponent’s position, usually to deflect attention away from his or her own inability to respond to the opponent’s actual position.

It’s like a baseball pitcher could project an image of a ball to appear alongside the real ball he has pitched. Hopefully, the batter would swing at the image instead of the real ball.

I’m not swinging at wooly mammoths or any of the other distracting images you have projected this morning.

Nobody here has invoked Al Gore as an authority.

Nobody here has quoted the World Socialist Website as an authority.

Nobody here has proclaimed friendship with the Defense of Marxism website.

Wooly mammoths, Al Gore, Socialism, Marxism. Ball four.

Why won’t you pitch one in the strike zone, Tiredofit? Why won’t you talk about the impacts of the rising sea levels mentioned in Kunectd

Posted 433 days ago.

mythravere

Its always about Al Gore. Goodness what stupidity and willful at that.

Just admit that the facts mean nothing to you. Your deciding factor revolves around it being an issue that people on the left hold as being true therefore you can't admit it has being true that man has a hand in climate change.

Just ignore the fact that billions of tons of co2 have been put back into the atmosphere.

Posted 433 days ago.

mythravere

There are reports that some places are seeing trees and animals that are NOT typically from those areas growing and living there.

Uggh! Edit doh!

Posted 434 days ago.

mythravere

In fact we are already seeing shifts in plant and animal life. A warmer world could make this area more favorable to animals that live south of us. The same for the north like Canada. There are reports that some places are seeing trees and animals that are typically from those areas growing and living there.

Posted 434 days ago.

mythravere

Seriously? Yes the planet was livable. But I am assuming your post is an attempt at saying we shouldn't even care about Co2 levels since things were ok way back when.

There is a huge issue with that. Namely the simple fact that at this current point in time our world wide ecology is adapted to certain specific parameters in the respective environments that have been following a set norm for a long period of time.

A warming world upsets those norms. A quickly warming world will throw those norms in disarray and may/will cause changes on a timescale that the flora and fauna of the various ecologies can not adapt to.

So how many plants and animals are adapted to survive with a climate that was present 32 million years ago?

Some would survive. But we would see massive dies offs in all environments on this planet.

Posted 434 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s one such warning from a July 29 article:

“A rise in sea levels threatens the viability of more than 1,400 (US) cities and towns, including Miami, Virginia Beach and Jacksonville, unless there are deep cuts in heat-trapping greenhouse gas emissions, says an analysis out Monday.”

htt p://ww w.usatoday.co m/story/news/nation/2013/07/29/sea-level-rise-cities-towns/2593727/

Again, thanks for bringing this out.

Posted 434 days ago.

harryanderson

Kunectdots,

Thanks for pointing this out. It demonstrates one very good reason why we should be concerned about global warming.

The blog to which you refer contains a piece of information that is highly relevant to today’s situation, to wit:

“The Eocene world was notably different from the modern one. Though the land masses that would become the modern continents are discernible, they differ from their modern counterparts in both shape and position. As described in The Resilient Earth, this was partly due to higher sea-levels and the ongoing breakup of Gondwanaland.”

Many have warned about the “higher sea-levels” that accompany global warming. Higher sea levels threaten much of the world’s very expensive coastal infrastructure.

Posted 434 days ago.

Kunectdots

An interesting article entitled "CO2 & Temperature During The Middle Eocene Climatic Optimum" can be found at; h ttp://theresilientearth.c om/?q=content/co2-temperature-during-middle-eocene-climatic-optimum

I found the suggestion that CO2 levels may have been 50X higher 32 million years ago, and yet the Earth would have been very "livable", as fascinating. Today's atmospheric CO2 level of .04% would have been approaching 2% during the Eocene Period. AND THERE WASN'T COAL-FIRED POWER PLANT IN SIGHT.

Goodnight Al Gore, wherever you are!

Posted 434 days ago.

moderation

Who is Paris Hilton? (:

Posted 434 days ago.

mythravere

One thing about posting and gripping at each other that people might not think of is this.

At least we care. That goes for all of us on this board.

There are people in this nation who are of no opinion on the issues that affect them. Their only concern is what directly affects them on a day to day basis. And I dont think anyone will disagree with me that at least we aren't making our number one concern what goes on in the lives of celebrities and having our senses dulled with reality tv etc.

At least we give a dang to argue about real issues instead of filling our lives with stupid superficial drama.

At least thats how I see it. I'd rather argue till I was red in the face with someone on an important issue rather than talk for one second about the Kardashians or whatever.

Just my two cents.

Posted 438 days ago.

mythravere

Adversarial:Involving or characterized by conflict or opposition or simply meaning opposed.

Posted 438 days ago.

harryanderson

R1KRA8,

You bring up a good, relevant point. A sociopath may choose to play football only because he or she likes to hit people. In the same way, a sociopath may comment only to browbeat people.

That description doesn’t fit Tiredofit. Tiredofit clearly is no sociopath.

Posted 438 days ago.

harryanderson

“I have no interest in trying to change your mind”

I don’t understand that statement at all. If you’re not interested in persuading people, why step onto the field of adversarial discourse at all?

It’s like a football player who’s not interested in scoring a touchdown or field goal.

Posted 438 days ago.

mythravere

"So you impeach the source because he is a Conservative like Harry???? I found it very interesting."

Oh gawd this gem! Ok would you make up your mind. Is Harry only a conservative when it is expedient to your cause for him to be one?

The truth is Harry IS a conservative. You on the other hand? I'm not sure what you are...one who conserves....thats debatable .

Posted 439 days ago.

mythravere

Now Tiredofit lol. Who is my source? The authors themselves! Did you just waltz right over the post where I mentioned them and one of them specifically?

And me mentioning of the soros linked site was me handing you the noose.

You latched straight onto that angle just like I thought you would.

In the very article you mentioned the author of the study took issue with Mr Taylor's "findings".

How you missed that is beyond me.

And you call me delusional? Ha!

This isn't the first time I have seen a righty reference that Forbes article. If you dont want to be called a denier I'd try finding conclusive information that refutes climate change science by using science.

Good luck with that.

Posted 439 days ago.

mythravere

First off. Kunnect there are natural phenomenon in play when it comes to the climatic changes this world is experiencing.

After all we are in an inter-glacial period right now. But natural causes can not account for all of the warming we are experiencing.

Posted 439 days ago.

harryanderson

BTW, Tiredofit,

If you care to read the actual paper, you'll find a link to it in the Forbes op-ed.

Posted 439 days ago.

harryanderson

Kunectdots:

Who is Easttexas51?

Posted 439 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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