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
123 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

"Is CO2 a leading or lagging indicator? Why has the warming STOPPED and CO2 still rises."

There's a problem with saying that the warming has stopped. Atmospheric warming has plateaued. But its has been discovered that oceanic temperatures are rising. So that being the case stating that the warming has stopped doesn't accurately describe what is really happening in regards to global warming.

Posted 682 days ago.

mythravere

Its hard to provide a provable fact to someone who claims it is false regardless of its veracity.

That is the game you play.

Posted 682 days ago.

mythravere

"You will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful."

So Tiredofit do you prescribe to what that statement says.

Yes or No?

Posted 682 days ago.

mythravere

True or False Tiredofit.

You will always say that the proof we provide is false even if it is correct and truthful.

True or false Tiredofit?

You are just on here for a cheap laugh by jerking peoples chains?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

Lol Back to your favorite subject, eh Tiredofit?

And that favorite subject is me.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

I've thought we should discuss the revenue-neutral carbon tax, but I'm not ready to "advocate it" without more information.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

That's hilarious. If you won't believe the climate scientists, who are educated experts, why should I expect you to believe me?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"I couldn't care less what you think"

Lol. I've always known that.

I asked what you thought.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

To do what to myself?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

I don't know if I've mentioned a revenue- neutral carbon tax. If I did, it was many moons ago.

I'm confident I haven't, as you say, "advocated" it.

How do you feel about it?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

I don't know if I've mentioned a revenue- neutral carbon tax. If I did, it was many moons ago.

I'm confident I haven't, as you say, "advocated" it.

How do you feel about it?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

I must go now. It'll give you time to think about the carbon tax issue you impulsively brought up.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"Sure Harry won't cost a dime"

Are you suggesting the conservative economists and Republicans are lying when they push a revenue-neutral carbon tax?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"Yeah I know you don't either but that's exactly what you advocate"

Not true. I haven't even mentioned taxing carbon until you brought it up. It's dishonest to ascribe positions to me that I haven't taken.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"That is the plan, to tax carbon, do you deny that."

I've endorsed no plan except to think about our choices in our personal lives.

But since you've raised it, a number of Republicans have proposed a carbon tax, with 100% of the revenue gain being used to reduce personal and corporate income taxes.

I haven't made my mind up on this proposal. Since you brought up the issue, do you have any thoughts on it?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"Then you have Munster on your side, yeah that screams credible."

I know not to whom you refer. Just for the record, I don't take sides in your partisan bickering, and nobody is speaking on my behalf or at my behest. I believe you refer to somebody else being on my side so you won't have to address my post, which concerns how we adjust to a future where we burn less fossil fuel.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"You just love to hang on to a phrase and try to parse it into what it's not"

So what does "most likely" mean to you?

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

"Yeah Harry and our use of the horse faded when something better came along, that's a long way from banning horses or taxing them to pay Henry Ford."

I said nothing about banning fossil fuels. Or "taxing them to pay Henry Ford," whatever that means.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

We agree that our fossil fuel use will "most likely" decrease. Even 2/3 of Republicans, as I pointed out before, say we should decrease our reliance on fossil fuels.

Therefore, it's wise to think and talk about how we will adapt.

Posted 682 days ago.

harryanderson

Evidence that refutes politically and culturally sensitive beliefs can backfire. People can actually adhere to their false beliefs more strongly after seeing evidence that contradicts them.

Brendan Nyhan, PhD., of Dartmouth has found this effect in several issues. In his latest paper, he presented evidence to parents who refused to vaccinate their kids. He and his colleagues concluded:

"Attempts to increase concerns about communicable diseases or correct false claims about vaccines may be especially likely to be counterproductive."

pediatrics.aappublications.or g/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365

Posted 682 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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