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
157 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 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 534 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 534 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 534 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 534 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 534 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 534 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 535 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 535 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 535 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 535 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 535 days ago.

harryanderson

Reducing our carbon emissions is the responsible, free, and conservative course.

I'm not among those who whine, "My little bit doesn't count." Free men and women do what they can without complaint.

Posted 535 days ago.

harryanderson

I called for individual responsibility, not political action.

When we wait for politicians to act on known threats, we cede power to the government. When we take personal responsibility, we keep our freedoms.

Posted 535 days ago.

harryanderson

Perhaps some of those who invited Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress don’t realize he supports the scientific consensus. At the Copenhagen Summit, Israel agreed to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by 2020. Netanyahu said:

“…the threat of climate change is no less menacing than the security threats that we face. I intend to act determinedly in this field. In a country that suffers from a severe water shortage, this is an existential struggle.”

htt p://w ww.jpost.co m/Enviro-Tech/Cabinet-okays-NIS-22b-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases

The US military has also labeled global warming a security threat. Those who seek to lessen the security threat to Israel and America will lower their carbon emissions.

Let us take personal responsibility and “act determinedly in this field.”

It’s a matter of patriotism.

Posted 535 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, the truth that upsets them the most is the overwhelming scientific consensus. It really galls them that, according to figures quoted by stillhere, only one paper out of every 143 agreed with them.

Posted 536 days ago.

harryanderson

97% of the most-published and most-reviewed climate scientists have reached a consensus.

These scientists have made their work known and subjected it to scrutiny.

Will you follow their example and subject your work to scrutiny? What are you afraid of?

Frauds refuse to disclose their sources. Are you a fraud?

Posted 536 days ago.

harryanderson

Do we get to check the credibility of your source, or does it come from an anonymous internet poster with a history of misrepresenting the work of climate scientists?

I'm trying to figure out whether your information is credible. Who paid for it?

Posted 536 days ago.

harryanderson

From where did you copy that post, stillhere?

Posted 536 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere, you posted:

"Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position."

I'd like to check the credibility of your source. From where did you copy this?

Posted 536 days ago.

harryanderson

Do you know who paid for your counter climate change bible? Who filled the collection plate? Who paid for the words you posted?

Do we mere mortals get to read the words your counter climate change gods have written? Or is that only for you true believers?

Posted 536 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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