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
67 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

harryanderson

You want to see provable facts. I cited 43 scientific papers. Read them. If you have a problem with their conclusions, take it up with the experts. Write your own peer-reviewed paper.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not going to look it up, Tiredofit.

I told you I did. I can think of at least 3 others here whom I've corrected.

And I believe I may have disputed myth on this. Have I, myth?

Posted 632 days ago.

mythravere

"There may be a day when renewable energy is feasible, its not NOW."

Well finally something we do agree on.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

Yes. I have admonished others on here beside you.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

""There may be a day when renewable energy is feasible, its not NOW."

That didn't answer the question. Again, do you agree we should reduce our use of fossil fuels in the future?

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

Have I called you offensive names?

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

"I don't disagree with any of the last few reasons you cite for getting off fossil fuels."

So you agree that we should burn less fossil fuels in the future?

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

Here's how the Bible instructs us.

"But avoid foolish and ignorant disputes, knowing that they generate strife."

A person doesn't have to be a Christian to see the wisdom in that.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

We don't need demonize one another.

Consider me and you, myth. We have opposite foundational principles. I'm a Christian and you're an atheist. We have debated that and neither of us has converted the other.

But for all that, we've never resorted to name-calling, and I've come to respect you. That's as it should be.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

I disagree. He is interested in winning. He's so interested in "winning" that he's willing to forsake common decency by calling others foul names. And even try to get other posters to attack one another.

Posted 632 days ago.

mythravere

Which leads into three possibilities in regards to your motivations.

You are wrong and know you are wrong but putting a show to save face.

You are just being argumentative and contrary just because you can.

Or you actually think you are right. Which given your style of discourse leads me to believe that if this is the case then you are insane.

Posted 632 days ago.

mythravere

Tiredofit the foundation of your position on this issue has so many cracks and voids in it. Its hilarious.

You must be mentally deranged to try and argue the way you do. Ignoring facts about this issue and about your motivations(you never address those). And then you demand we prove our supposedly false position while you have to prove nothing which according to your is the truth and is backed up by facts that you know while complaining we are misinformed. Meaning that you have a way to resolve this debate. Which showing that they are correct is the real point of any debater.

But you are obviously not interested in winning this debate because if you were you would have shown concisely why you are right.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

I try to get my information from neutral sources that appeal to reason, not emotion.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

I try to get my information from neutral sources that appeal to reason, not emotion.

Posted 632 days ago.

mythravere

And you are saying Tiredofit that the real..the true science is on your side.

LOL!

But their funding? It leads to no conflict of interest at all? LOL!

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

I like breathing clean air.

Posted 632 days ago.

mythravere

A neutral source is the actual scientists.

But who am I kidding you don't even trust the scientists. Which is funny because if what you say is true and there has been no warming a person would have to rely on scientists to show them that. Which is even funnier because in your case I am guessing that if they stated that you would then somehow look the other way and not question their funding.

LOL!

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

Lowering our use of fossil fuels, which 2/3 of Republican- leaning voters would like to see us do, would lessen our need to buy them from unstable regions like the Mideast.

That' good for our national security.

Posted 632 days ago.

harryanderson

As we lower our use of fossil fuels, we'll breathe in less of the smog and soot they cause.

That's a good thing.

Posted 632 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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