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 days 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

Tiredofit

The only pertinent question Harry is do you believe that climate scientists exaggerate in order to scare the public motivate politicians and increae funding? Or is the climate program director at NOAA wrong?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Somehow harry attempts to change the topic about lying to get more funding into how sad it is that we fearful people want to cut off funding????? Where did that come from??? Then dear harry lights one up, and brings forth the strawman tobacco companies??///// pathetic really, not your best effort Harry.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirectionIt's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Work .calls, more like the bell saving you. .

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Your view means nothing to this subject, you challanged me for evidence of funding being tied to results. I give you the climate program director at Noaa admitting it. Now you try to talk about smoking and other nonsense.

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

Hopefully, we can find some areas of agreement if you would like to reduce the scientific uncertainty. Unfortunately, I expect you to continue evading the question, even though I answered your question unequivocally.

We’ll see. For now, I have to get to work earning a living. I don’t get paid to opine about this.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Clearly it an admission of scare tactics with a political motive and a play for money.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

You don't view this as results being shaped to garner funding?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's not my political game, its climate science that is exaggerating for profit.

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?”

No. I wouldn’t do it. Like I’ve said over and over, I’m not interested your political games. It’s a scientific discussion. It’s an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

Would you like to remove all doubt about the issue so we could cooperate?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

No way out for ya on this one Harry. No one said a thing about cutting existing funding, she wants MORE. And we sensational exaggerations is how you get there, lets just call it lying.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets take another look at what she said.The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.. .only way to assure any political action and THUS MORE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

When did science decide exaggerating was ok? I thought it was just about the facts? No agenda, no thought of money? Yeah right.

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

Would you like to reduce the scientific uncertainty, Tiredofit?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

You have lost harry. It's obvious now you bring up smoking to deflect. Lets focus Harry. You challanged me to show any evidence where results were tied to FUNDING and vise versa. I have CLEARLY shown a FEDERAL agency climate program director and scientist admitting to exagerations of data/results to gain MORE FUNDING.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Good lord you are funny. She admits to exaggerating to get political action and more funding. So the exaggerations are knowingly not accurate, and the reason to lie, is to get attention and MONEY.

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

It's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product."

Posted 85 days ago.

harryanderson

Read again what you wrote.

You said they sought funding "to reduced the scientific uncertainty."

In other words, fill in the knowledge gaps you're always bringing up. Who can complain about that? Who doesn't want to reduce the scientific uncertainty?

I'll tell you who--those whose political, ideological, and cultural biases control them.

Posted 85 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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