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
4 hours ago.
by harryanderson
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

Kendall78

"his analysis?"

"Analysis- detailed examination of the elements or structure of something, typically as a basis for discussion or interpretation."

Saying basically "no" is not analysis.

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

“The whole idea of anthropogenic global warming is completely unfounded. There appears to have been money gained by Michael Mann, Al Gore and UN IPCC’s Rajendra Pachauri as a consequence of this deception, so it’s fraud.” — South African astrophysicist Hilton Ratcliffe, a member of the Astronomical Society of Southern Africa (ASSA) and the Astronomical Society of the Pacific and a Fellow of the British Institute of Physics.

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

We maintain there is no reason whatsoever to worry about man-made climate change, because there is no evidence whatsoever that such a thing is happening.” — Greek Earth scientists Antonis Christofides and Nikos Mamassis of the National Technical University of Athens’ Department of Water Resources and Environmental Engineering.

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

Global warming is the central tenet of this new belief system in much the same way that the Resurrection is the central tenet of Christianity. Al Gore has taken a role corresponding to that of St Paul in proselytizing the new faith…My skepticism about AGW arises from the fact that as a physicist who has worked in closely related areas, I know how poor the underlying science is. In effect the scientific method has been abandoned in this field.” — Atmospheric Physicist Dr. John Reid, who worked with Australia’s CSIRO’s (Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization) Division of Oceanography and worked in surface gravity waves (ocean waves) research.

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

The dysfunctional nature of the climate sciences is nothing short of a scandal. Science is too important for our society to be misused in the way it has been done within the Climate Science Community.” The global warming establishment “has actively suppressed research results presented by researchers that do not comply with the dogma of the IPCC.” — Swedish Climatologist Dr. Hans Jelbring, of the Paleogeophysics & Geodynamics Unit at Stockholm University. [Updated December 9, 2010. Corrects Jelbring's quote.]

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

I'm not advocating major change in our economy and energy sector, you are. So provide the PROOF that this is needed or just admit

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win

Posted 4 days ago.

mythravere

"What high degree have you attained to dismiss his analysis?"Tiredofit

Oh goody. So Tiredofit what qualifications do you have that allow you to dismiss what the climatologists are saying about mans role in climate change?

Posted 4 days ago.

mythravere

"At this stage of the debate (if one would call it that), no one can give you proof you would accept Tired.

That's why we want you to tell us what you would consider proof."

The thing about Tiredofits criteria for proof is that its not set in stone. He's one of those types who likes to move the goal posts.

Like I said. Any proof we provide will be denied by Tiredofit even if it is correct and truthful.

Thats his games plan. His whole point in this debate is to deny everything we say.

Posted 4 days ago.

Tiredofit

So a physicist, who is not a climate scientist, goes into full denial mode with no facts.

And where are your facts?

What high degree have you attained to dismiss his analysis?

Posted 4 days ago.

Kendall78

So a physicist, who is not a climate scientist, goes into full denial mode with no facts.

You know that the "nah" argument isn't really an argument at all.

Posted 4 days ago.

"Oregon-based physicist Gordon Fulks sums it up well: “CO2 is said to be responsible for global warming that is not occurring, for accelerated sea-level rise that is not occurring, for net glacial and sea ice melt that is not occurring . . . and for increasing extreme weather that is not occurring.”

h ttp://nypost.c om/2014/09/14/leo-v-science-vanishing-evidence-for-climate-change/

Posted 5 days ago.

Kendall78

At this stage of the debate (if one would call it that), no one can give you proof you would accept Tired.

That's why we want you to tell us what you would consider proof. Here are some examples:

Educational Sources

Govt Sources

Pubished works by scientists from fields related to climate

Would you accept any of these sources as proof? A simple yes or no would be good enough.

Posted 5 days ago.

Kendall78

"and to define it."

So you will accept whatever difinition we give?

And btw, you are asking us for something, we merely are wanting to clarify what that something is to make certain you get what want. No point in wasting even more time with "proof" that doesn't meet your criteria after all right?

Posted 5 days ago.

Tiredofit

WE WILL TRY AGAIN TOMORROW.

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win

Posted 5 days ago.

Tiredofit

IF YOU CANT EXPLAIN THE PAUSE YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN THE CAUSE WELL IS ANYONE ABLE TO give me the proof that manmade CO2 causes global warming. LOLOLOL you guys are trying everything to avoid that question because to quote my good friend Myth"

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win

Posted 5 days ago.

Tiredofit

You make the claim that Man is causing global warming, prove it get off the pot.

Posted 5 days ago.

Tiredofit

You are making the case, its up to you to provide the proof and to define it.

Don't be lazy.

Posted 5 days ago.

Kendall78

We will provide all the "proof" you need when you define what you consider proof.

Once you do that, then I am certain it will be provided for you. Why are you so stubborn on this?

Posted 5 days ago.

Tiredofit

WELL IS ANYONE ABLE TO give me the proof that manmade CO2 causes global warming. LOLOLOL you guys are trying everything to avoid that question because to quote my good friend Myth"

mythravere

We can't provide any proof. You win

Check back later I guess. Sure is enlightening to see how there is no one stepping up.

Posted 5 days ago.

mythravere

Oh yea Tiredofit. You know what the difference between a livable biosphere for a given species and a biosphere that won't support the given species life?

A few degrees in temperature. Also acidity in the case of corals.

Posted 5 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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