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
68 days ago.
by slinky
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

"The level of bitterness they bring is quite clear but a rational person would have to wonder why."

LOL! Really? This from the guy who repeatedly calls out people as socialists when they plainly state they are not. This from the guy who repeatedly stated that those who believe in the validity of this issue are wanting to see the government take over the energy industry? Even after we said we do not support such actions.

THIS from the guy who on the Marrietta Times forum resorted to calling another poster a fluffer?

This from the guy who made fun of and used against me a math disability I stated I had. Repeatedly using the term shortbus.

Really? LOL! Such hypocrisy.

Posted 586 days ago.

mythravere

"And they ARE socialists, some like Myth are just not bright enough to realize the ultimate end to their goals." Stillhere

There you go falsely equating me with a political movement I do not subscribe to.

But I do understand why you do that.

Its a doubt casting tactic.

All that does is show that this issue and your disagreement with it is of a political nature.

After all why would you point out (falsely) the political leanings of people if it was just about the facts of the issue itself?

Posted 586 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! Then you claim as you have before that our interest in this issue has reached the level of religion.

Well the same can be said about you.

This crusade is so important to you that you just had to come back after getting banned.

Posted 586 days ago.

mythravere

"Perhaps that explains the visceral reaction by posters on this forum NO?" Stillhere.

Oh goodness lol!

If anyone is having a visceral reaction its you buckwheat.

All one has to do is to look at how you debate.

I mean it wasn't I who got banned off of two sites because of my behaviour.

That was you. And here you are back under another username doing the same things that got you booted before.

Posted 586 days ago.

harryanderson

Now we see the political agenda. Stillhere invokes Dr. Lindzen for his scientific expertise. Then, he discovers that some of Dr. Lindzen’s scientific statements disagree with Stillhere’s political agenda. So he starts to ignore his former guru, Lindzen, and instead focus on a reporter’s perceived politics.

And this happens each time a counter climate changer tries to get into the scientific area. Like Joe Bast of Heartland said, “We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well, but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Later, kiddies.

Posted 587 days ago.

Desperation time for them, Stillhere. They will never prove man made global warming. A useless waste of time.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

And again, I didn't post Gillis' opinion. I posted Lindzen's opinion. If you can show where Lindzen has disavowed what Gillis reported, let's hear it.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

It won't work, Stillhere. You can't erase what Lindzen told Gillis with your political opinions of Gillis. If you can demonstrate that Gillis wasn't truthful, do so. Otherwise, his report stands.

Posted 587 days ago.

moderation

Your insulting behaviors are pathetic and immature,ithink.

Posted 587 days ago.

moderation

He brought forth no evidence, ithink.His case was merely political.And you signed off on it.Did you actually read his effort?Do you tell your children they can't have an opinion until they are degreed at least at a bachelors' level.Did the mention of the tea party offend you?

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Here's a tidbit to further demonstrate that Gillis' article is not an opinion piece. The conservative Weekly Standard calls Gillis a "science writer."

"As the science writer Justin Gillis explained in a 2012 New York Times piece, Lindzen 'says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase.'”

ht tp://w ww.weeklystandard.co m/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=3

So your opinion, Stillhere, that the NYT news story is an "opinion piece," is apparently not shared by one of the country's most credible and respected (in my opinion) conservative publications.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere,

Your criticism of the article I posted doesn't hold water for several reasons.

1. You mistakenly referred to it as an "opinion piece," when it was published in hard news under science; it wasn't published in the op-ed section, So calling it an opinion piece is nothing more than your opinion,

2. Even if Gillis believes the science, he doesn't give his say so in this article.

3, The only opinions to which I referred were the opinions of Lindzen, Do you deny any of those opinions are Lindzen's?

Your criticism falls flat. You want to talk about Gillis, not what Lindzen told him.

Posted 587 days ago.

hey mod, if John Coleman lacks the credentials you feel a common sense meteorologist should have, tell us the degrees you hold which make you qualified to post with such authority on the same subject.

Personally I am not impressed as much with degrees as I am with intelligent scholarship and self education.

Posted 587 days ago.

mythravere

Ohwiseone you do know what the pronunciation of Faux is right?

It sounds like Fo or Foe.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Ohwiseone, I wish you'd stop with the name-calling. It isn't helpful.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

I have faith in our system, and I believe the nonpolitical problem-solvers will shove the lying politicians aside, roll up their sleeves, and fix it. It's already happening with some of our biggest, most hard-headed institutions like Exxon, Shell, and the Dept. of Defense.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Al Gore apparently misled people with his movie. I say " apparently" because I haven't seen it. He's a politician, and he seems to think a catastrophe is coming unless we enact his political agenda.

My review of the science causes me to disagree with the gloom-and-doom political-agenda bunch. I agree with the CEO of Exxon, who said, "It's an engineering problem with an engineering solution."

So I'm optimistic. We*****at politics, but we're great engineers.

If the politicking doesn't prevent the engineering, we'll be fine.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Dr. Lindzen " has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature," so he has taken it to the political arena.

Unfortunately, political-agenda discussions are the places we least expect to find truth. Whether they be on the right or on the left, politicians lie.

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Dr. Lindzen agrees with global warming GHG's, but predicts They will cause little harm because fewer cirrus clouds will allow more AGW heat to escape.

However--

"Today, most mainstream researchers consider Dr. Lindzen’s theory discredited. He does not agree, but he has had difficulty establishing his case in the scientific literature."

Posted 587 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly. I've never known a climate scientist to deny that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. Only political-agenda people.

According to the NYT article I referenced earlier, even the aforementioned "Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.' He agrees that the level of it is rising because of human activity and that this should warm the climate."

Posted 587 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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