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
9 hours 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

Ohwiseone

Like I said , unless Rush or Faux said it is true tirebrain will po-po it !

Posted 29 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Well I guess that tiredbrain cant be wrong when there wont ever be any research it will believe ! All research is funded one way or another so there can never be any that has any basis in fact !Millions of hours of research invalidated by the simple notion that tiredbrain says its all skewed because of funding !

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"Cannot prove a negative."

I have never asked you to prove the negative...not once. You should try to make your lies more opaque.

Posted 29 days ago.

Ohweirdone, do you only know about rich republiicans ? Take a look at Soros...the Kennedy family, Jay Rockefeller, Pelosi, Boxer, Reid,and a pack of other rich democrats.

And if they are not rich, they will be when they leave office. Like Clinton and Gore. Look for Bamy to be a millionaire, too. Going green means raking in green dollars for democrat politicians.

Ohweirdone, I change your name because you change names.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

It would appear you don't have a bit...that I agree with. ;)

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"They reward those that develop theories that predict devastation.."

No proof, new fearmongering.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"He calls skeptics illogical yet he thinks women came from Adams rib?"

Tired, that is one of the worse pi** poor attempt at deflection I have ever seen on here and that means alot after seeing your daily rants.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"Big oil has found a way to profit by cooperation with the socialists."

Evidence or are you speculating again?

Posted 29 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly, myth. As I posted before, even Exxon and Shell now acknowledge that man is heating the planet.

Being rational, these former funders of climate science denialism know they must adapt to the best info available, which comes from 97% of the most-expert climate researchers.

The irrational, on the other hand...

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"The GOVT does not give grants to those whos findings say its a natural cycle.."

Guess those scientists are not very convincing.

Posted 29 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Look , just because research is funded in part by the government doesn't make their findings invalid ! What is invalid is the republicans trying to protect their wealthy benefactors (coal,oil) from something that might cost these same benefactors money !!! Its the same with Obamacare, the only difference is its the healthcare insurance industry they are protecting ! They don't really give a rats arse about Joe Lunchbox or his /her rights ! All this debate is just about MONEY!!!!

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"The more you find the more money you make."

That's the kind of thinking that got the vaccination/autism conspiracy stuff going but one should get all the facts before jumping to conclusions.

If the scientists are fudging data for more grants, then it should be easy to prove. And of course it takes more than a few scientists to discredit an entire scientific premise.

Posted 29 days ago.

JoeBlow

It seems many of these scientists that are studying global warming are paid from grants from the government. The more you find the more money you make. It seems like when you hire consultants to come in. They always find changes for you to make, and then in a few years it is changed back to what you were doing in the first place.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"climate scientists might exaggerate"

climate scientists might sprout wings

climate scientists might become deniers

climate scientists might grow two heads

climate scientists might dye their hair green

Wow...so many mights and they are all equal without proof Tired. So if you are claiming they all exaggerate, provide evidence to this claim of yours.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"STOPPED heating the earth and just decided to heat the ocean"

The oceans are part of the Earth...duh.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

Actually...I see nothing but opinion in the copy/paste you put up.

Now if you would put the actually citation from Hadley, NASA's GISS, UAH and RSS...then you might have something. For all we know, that cite you copy/pasted from could be lying about what those places said.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"All four major global temperature tracking outlets.."

Well..let's see this latest...wait...2008? How is this up to date?

Tired...try researching.

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

"The warming trend has STOPPED"

Actually that's not true. It's only true if you ignore the oceans and why would any idiot do that considering how vast they are.

Posted 29 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Your opinion was predetermined before this debate even began and it can not be swayed. ~~~~~~~Nevertheless, there is a strong, credible body of evidence, based on multiple lines of research, documenting that climate is changing and that these changes are in large part caused by human activities. While much remains to be learned, the core phenomenon, scientific questions, and hypotheses have been examined thoroughly and have stood firm in the face of serious scientific debate and careful evaluation of alternative explanations.”

— United States National Research Council, Advancing the Science of Climate Change

Posted 29 days ago.

Kendall78

Actually, wasn't those theories from the 70's I thought?

As I said, it's best to look at the big picture and not the smaller scale. It benefits the opposition to look at the smaller scale time frames because they can claim a plateau when their isn't one.

Posted 29 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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