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
101 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

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 525 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 525 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 525 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 525 days ago.

harryanderson

I like breathing clean air.

Posted 525 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 525 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 525 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 525 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 525 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 525 days ago.

harryanderson

The purpose is to shut down rational debate.

Posted 525 days ago.

mythravere

Neutral sources will be the only proof that is considered.

You've dumped a heck of a lot of "proof" from rightwing sources on here.

Sorry but thats just not gonna cut it.

And more importantly its easy to ascertain the manner in which you conducted your "research". You just hopped around copy and pasting from whatever you thought had something to say that supports your cause.

Posted 525 days ago.

Kendall78

What would you consider to count as proof Tired?

Posted 525 days ago.

Kendall78

"You asked for research that is meaningful and that was provided"

No, it wasn't provided. This was neither research or meaningful. It was copy/paste from various less than savory source material.

Posted 526 days ago.

Kendall78

Wow...look at all the copy/paste from Tired. Without much in the way of citations I might add.

Posted 526 days ago.

mythravere

I'll repeat what I said earlier.

There is no point in showing you the proof. No matter how right it is you can't admit that it is right because you can't allow us to be right on this issue.

Posted 526 days ago.

mythravere

"Lol so you and Kendall claim to have proof but won't share it lol."

Why does it sound ridiculous? Its exactly what you are doing.

Posted 526 days ago.

Kendall78

"claim to have proof but won't share it lol."

It's right there for the taking Tired. But if you want it to be spoonfed to you...again....I'll make a deal with you.

You provide the proof to your arguments, and then I will repost the proof for mine.

Posted 526 days ago.

harryanderson

It's absurd to try to prove something to someone who won't consider the forms of evidence everybody else, including the courts and the Congress, uses to make decisions.

To someone who has repeatedly tried to belittle the other posters here.

It's absurd to offer scientific proof to someone who has declared, "This is not a scientific debate."

Posted 526 days ago.

mythravere

But...you...can't..have it. (channeling my inner Captain Kirk).

Posted 526 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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