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
6 days 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

Stillhere

ITHINK you have the morons stirred up, good job.

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone is just like an old baby toy. You pull a string and it says the same nonsensical words over and over.

Posted 285 days ago.

mythravere

"Who makes money with the lies? Easy, easy, easy. The climate changers who are making movies and TV shows,writing books, selling stuff (even t shirts)."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Reeeeeeallllly?

LOL!

You say that while the little fact that those who run the campaigns and other forms of support for rightwing politicians and policies take your money and run with it. Which is provable by their very own tax forms. The vast majority of money they raise goes into expenses with less the 10% in a lot of cases going toward the actual cause.

Whats funny is that they know exactly what to say and what fears to coddle to get you to toss your money at them.

LOL!

Posted 285 days ago.

moderation

Good interpretation,harryanderson.

Posted 285 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere, I didn't say he had a "conservative political outlook." That was the Weekly Standard.

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

That's right , sure cant miss you, now can we ? The lover of inconvenient facts !!(sarcasm)LOLOL

Posted 285 days ago.

Stillhere

Useful idiots on full display.

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

There is a preponderance of evidence that states just the opposite of your opinion , so why should I believe some right-wing whacko over research that is credible ?

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

I'm sorry thinkie but that's not really an answer !So you think people will make millions selling books or giving speeches ? There are speeches given everyday by a multitude of people , even the idiot dubya , so why does this one issue bother you and your overseers so much ?

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

You righties still haven't answered this question !Who is going to make money and how are they earning it ,by warning folks that we need to take care of our planet and the Arctic has lost about 70% of its total volume of sea ice over the past three decades. ?

Posted 285 days ago.

Stillhere

I KNOW you are a slave to science right Harry?

Posted 285 days ago.

Stillhere

Ok Harry, he is worthy when he agrees with you lol ok he's the one with the agenda sure,

Posted 285 days ago.

You should answer your own ideotic question. No warning is going on. It is fraud and lies.

Who makes money with the lies? Easy, easy, easy. The climate changers who are making movies and TV shows,writing books, selling stuff (even t shirts).

The radical warmers who get enormous fees for speaking at colleges and money making tours. Lawyers like Bobby Kennedy Jr.The wacky college professors and pseudo scientists who get huge grants for fake studies and programs. The green businesses that rake in billions of our dollars before they go belly up..

And we can't forget the politcians who scare people to get elected and rich.

Posted 285 days ago.

harryanderson

Second problem: Lindzen’s confident predictions that global warming will cause no harm. The Weekly Standard reports:

“Lindzen also disputes the accuracy of the computer models that climate scientists rely on to project future temperatures. He contends that they oversimplify the vast complexity of the Earth’s climate and, moreover, that it’s impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability.”

The climate IS complex, but here’s Lindzen’s problem: If it’s “impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability,” how can Lindzen predict that global warming will result in no harm?

Lindzen contradicts himself.

If predictions are impossible, why are Lindzen’s own predictions any better than the predictions of the majority of other climate scientists? Again, Lindzen behaves like those he criticizes.

Posted 285 days ago.

harryanderson

First problem: The Weekly Standard shows Lindzen’s political bias.

“One frustrating feature of the climate debate is that people’s outlook on global warming usually correlates with their political views. So if a person wants low taxes and restrictions on abortion, he probably isn’t worried about climate change. And if a person supports gay marriage and raising the minimum wage, he most likely thinks the threat from global warming warrants costly public-policy remedies. And of course, even though Lindzen is an accomplished climate scientist, he has his own political outlook—a conservative one. “

So, while Lindzen accuses others of having a political agenda, he has one himself. He’s behaving like those he criticizes.

Posted 285 days ago.

harryanderson

Dr. Lindzen is worthy of serious consideration. For example,

“Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. ‘We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,’ he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by ‘a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?’”

htt p://ww w.weeklystandard.co m/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

But I have two problems with Lindzen: I think he lets his political agenda color his thinking and I wonder about his predictions. In both of these areas, Lindzen behaves a lot like those whom he criticizes.

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Rush ites !Now even the censures hate Rush !

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

And still you deflect or deny the truth ! The point that your right-wing training lacks is the one thing you all refuse to answer !Who is going to make money and how are they earning it ,by warning folks that we need to take care of our planet ? And I am by far not a "liberal" ! But I detest the way you Ru****es use it like its a swear word !And the "hate , war on women is well documented as coming from your side ! And again , the republican strategy of denial,deflection and lie, lie, lie wont help you shake that off !

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone can't post without his obsession with faux, whatever that is. Liberals are lost without the words faux, hate, Koch bros., racism and war on women. Lol Most people have never heard of the Koch bros. Soros is much more famous.

Posted 285 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Again , all it is , is proof that you are indeed a very small mind in a very big world !

Posted 285 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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