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
98 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

I’ve listed Republicans who accept the scientific consensus on global warming. Here are two more.

Number-three Senate Republican John Thune said, “There are a number of factors that contribute to (global warming), including human activity. The question is, what are we going to do about it and at what cost?”

w ww.washingtonpost.c om/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2014/11/17/top-republican-bows-to-scientists-on-climate-change/

And an editor at the Heartland Institute, Justin Haskins, admitted in Human Events, “The real debate is not whether man is, in some way, contributing to climate change; it’s true that the science is settled on that point in favor of the alarmists. The true debate ought to be focused on the extent to which man is affecting the global climate, the validity of the so-called 'solutions' to global warming, and if warming is really going to be the sort of catastrophe the media and alarmists keep telling the world it will be.”

Posted 307 days ago.

harryanderson

It's critical for conservatives like George Schultz to offer conservative solutions to global warming. No sense ceding the issue to liberals like we've been doing.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m not sure I agree with Schultz’s proposed solutions. I prefer the conservationist and personal responsibility approach. We should conserve resources for those who come behind us and assume responsibility for our actions that reduce others’ standard of living.

That being said, I agree with Schultz that, if we fail to act, we’ll be “mugged by reality.” And when that happens, big, intrusive, government steps in to exploit the crisis. That’s when our freedoms erode.

We should all conserve. Turn down thermostats. Walk, bike, or use shared transportation when possible. If we each act responsibly in his or her own sphere of influence, together we can make a huge impact. If we all sacrifice just a few of our present luxuries, we’ll leave better gift to those who follow us. It’s the right thing to do.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

Here's what I posted this morning, that apparently was too important to leave on the first page, so it was buried in numerous posts.

In an op-ed this morning, another conservative, George Schultz, who was Reagan’s Sec. of State, has proposed action on global warming.

After listing some of the strong scientific evidence, Schultz writes, “These are simple and clear observations, so I conclude that the globe is warming and that carbon dioxide has something to do with that fact. Those who say otherwise will wind up being mugged by reality.”

He proposes research into energy development and a carbon tax, and suggests Reagan, his old boss, might have done something similar.

htt p://ww w.washingtonpost.co m/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

But like all propaganda from you, the details don't matter. It's the scare.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I always figured you responded before reading and considering. You confirm that supposition when I write "village" and you read "race."

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

Perhaps you should learn how to read better. I said nothing about a race.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I should say that some people have been seeing changes. A village of 400 in Alaska must be relocated because of thin ice, and Republican Senator Lisa Senator Murkowski “acknowledges the impacts of climate change on Alaska’s coastal communities.”

htt p://ww w.washingtonpost.c om/news/energy environment/wp/2015/02/24/the-remote-alaskan-village-that-needs-to-be-relocated-due-to-climate-change/

But most of us in the northern temperate climate zone haven’t seen much effect from global warming.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

There is no crisis at present. That's why the counter global warming propaganda has shifted public opinion. People aren't yet seeing changes. It's not yet affecting them.

Maybe there have been changes due to global warming. Nevertheless, the extra energy is there, and almost every climate scientist says it will emerge and change the climate in ways that will lessen our ability to grow food, hydrate ourselves, and perform other necessary tasks.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I've never said we had a crisis. I've been consistent in saying that the problem is manageable.

I'm hopeful the problem won't turn into a crisis. All over the world, people are acting. They're conserving fossil fuels and developing alternatives.

If we make small sacrifices now, we canl avoid a crisis later.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

Will and you are correct in one respect. Liberals will exploit the crisis to grow government and circumscribe our freedoms.

That’s why I applaud conservatives like Schultz and Netanyahu who want to “act determinedly” while there is still no crisis. Like I wrote before, if we allow ourselves to get “mugged by reality,” big government will step in.

If we allow ourselves to get mugged by reality, we will get mugged by government.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I'd said you'd post angry, irrelevant things to bury my post.

And right on cue, you deflect to the ozone layer.

Like I said, these interactions are useful.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m not sure I agree with Schultz’s proposed solutions. I prefer the conservationist and personal responsibility approach. We should conserve resources for those who come behind us and assume responsibility for our actions that reduce others’ standard of living.

That being said, I agree with Schultz that, if we fail to act, we’ll be “mugged by reality.” And when that happens, big, intrusive, government steps in to exploit the crisis. That’s when our freedoms erode.

We should all conserve. Turn down thermostats. Walk, bike, or use shared transportation when possible. If we each act responsibly in his or her own sphere of influence, together we can make a huge impact. If we all sacrifice just a few of our present luxuries, we’ll leave better gift to those who follow us. It’s the right thing to do.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, stillhere, you show how completely you have lost the debate and have no options left but to suggest something is wrong with me.

That's why these little exchanges are useful. It shows that the anti-global warmers have no real argument.

I'd say your next tactic will be to post a lot of angry, irrelevant stuff to bury my post.

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

In an op-ed this morning, another conservative, George Schultz, who was Reagan’s Sec. of State, has proposed action on global warming.

After listing some of the strong scientific evidence, Schultz writes, “These are simple and clear observations, so I conclude that the globe is warming and that carbon dioxide has something to do with that fact. Those who say otherwise will wind up being mugged by reality.”

He proposes research into energy development and a carbon tax, and suggests Reagan, his old boss, might have done something similar.

htt p://ww w.washingtonpost.co m/opinions/a-reagan-model-on-climate-change/2015/03/13/4f4182e2-c6a8-11e4-b2a1-bed1aaea2816_story.html

Posted 334 days ago.

harryanderson

From where did you copy and paste the first two of your last three posts?

Why won't attribute your sources?

Posted 335 days ago.

harryanderson

Stop deflecting. The Bush administration's mismanagement of the war in Iraq isn't germane to this topic.

The Pentagon's stance on global warming is.

Posted 335 days ago.

harryanderson

So you don’t believe the military. You think they’re acting cynically to get more funding.

I, on the other hand, believe the military is acting with the best interests of the country in mind, and as a patriot, I intend to join them.

Posted 335 days ago.

harryanderson

Do you believe the US military that global warming is a national security threat? If so, how are you prepared to address that threat?

Posted 335 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm calling for conservation, not abstinence. Your scoffs can't stop people like Netanyahu and me from "(acting) determinedly in this field."

Posted 335 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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