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
8 hours ago.
by Stillhere
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

And once again for the colossally stupid, you cannot prove a negative

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

And no jimmy its you that due to a lack of formal education doesnt seem to understand what science is, its always based on skepticism not a pre conceived notion

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

Of course the earth has warmed or there would be mile thick ice sheets over your trailer, nonone is arguing that the earths climate is constant, nice bait and switch but it wont work here

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

Evidence that co2 is warming the planet? Oh thats right you dont think is is until you do, lol

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty

By the way Ms Kopacz is the noaa cliamte project leader

Posted 88 days ago.

Kendall78

"all see a larger budget if they claim the threat"

Evidence? You are implying that if they say their is a problem then they can get more cash. Do you have evidence that NOAA or the Pentagon has lied on global warming to get more cash?

Posted 88 days ago.

Kendall78

You don't seem to understand the scientific method. The scientific method has been used and shows global warming is happening.

You disagree with the results, so it falls on you (or those you agree with) to use the scientific method to show how they are wrong.

You haven't done this, when will you?

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

Richer countries see an opportunity to further control the masses and make billions (algore) in the process while poorer countries see world wide welath redistribution as thier meal ticket

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

Federal agencies like NOAA the pentagon, epa etc all see a larger budget if they claim the threat to be real, as some corporations even oil companies once they figured out the truth was useless to thier bottom line

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

The problem with the "scientific method" is that instead of trying to prove a theory wrong, as science should, These ipcc environarxists desperately try to find reasons they are right! Just like you

Posted 88 days ago.

Kunectdots

Kendall said, "I'm afraid that one day the Govt will make the decision and force everyday citizens into curbing any pollution they produce."

Congratulations Kendall and applause for the guy with the big head.

I believe you've stumbled upon the ultimate intent of the international Progressives climate (people control) agenda. Much of the substructure of the climate control movement is made up of very well-funded elitists who believe more in the rights of animals than those of the human race, that is, except at any inconvenience to themselves.

I wish you would make some effort to discover what their schemes for "Re-wilding" the planet actually involves.

Posted 88 days ago.

Kendall78

You wouldn't be suggesting that the nation ignores a problem are you? Even if you do not believe their is a problem, shouldn't the govt figure out if their is a problem that can be fixed?

Posted 88 days ago.

Stillhere

we might have to accept a revenue-neutral carbon tax

THERE IS NO SUCH THING, you are just dying to let the GOVT take more and more,

Just what are YOU doing about this problem you believe is out there? Coming to a paper forum in a town you don't live anywhere near and advocating big govt is hardly "taking responsibility now is it"

Posted 89 days ago.

harryanderson

Thanks for your reasonable response, Kentall. Your fears will undoubtedly become reality if we refuse to act. That pattern has burdened us with our current government mess.

It’s true that curbing US emissions alone won’t solve the problem. However, we buy more stuff than anybody else. So, if we take responsibility for the global warming implications of what we buy from all sources, both foreign and domestic, we in the US can have a huge impact.

Also, from my wonderful conservative parents, I learned that taking personal responsibility doesn’t depend on others doing so. They wouldn’t buy the “But everybody does it” excuse. Neither should we.

Posted 89 days ago.

Kendall78

I'm afraid that one day the Govt will make the decision and force everyday citizens into curbing any pollution they produce.

One sad fact is that (unlike what some on the far right may feel) the US isn't the world or even that big a part of it. Nations like China, India and Russia produce a huge amount of air pollution that effects the atmosphere. If we cut off our pollution, it won't matter much if those other nations don't.

Posted 89 days ago.

Stillhere

Forgive us ALGORE

Posted 89 days ago.

Stillhere

our Local republican is back admonishing us all about how we have sinned

Posted 89 days ago.

harryanderson

A carbon tax isn’t my preferred solution. I’d rather encourage people to take personal responsibility for their own actions and voluntarily reduce their carbon emissions. If we don’t take responsibility, we’ll cede more of our freedom to government. In 9th grade Civics, they taught us that freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. That’s why I say the counter climate change movement plays into the hands of big-government socialists.

But, if people refuse to take responsibility, we might have to accept a revenue-neutral carbon tax. It beats other government actions, like rationing and cap-and-trade.

Posted 89 days ago.

harryanderson

Like I said, even the oil companies call for a tax on carbon dioxide emissions. Addressing climate change is an issue conservatives should embrace. The dean of current conservative economic policy, Art Laffer, embraces it.

Laffer pioneered “supply-side” economics. He served on Ronald Reagan’s Economic Policy Advisory Board from 1981 to 1989. In an article co-authored by S.C. Republican Congressman Bob Inglis, Laffer wrote:

“We need to impose a tax on the thing we want less of (carbon dioxide) and reduce taxes on the things we want more of (income and jobs). A carbon tax would attach the national security and environmental costs to carbon-based fuels like oil, causing the market to recognize the price of these negative externalities.”

ht tp://w ww.nytimes.co m/2008/12/28/opinion/28inglis.html?_r=0

Laffer and many other conservative stalwarts who argue for a carbon tax insist it be offset by tax reductions on “income and jobs.”

Posted 89 days ago.

Kendall78

It will be interesting to see how the better readings show the state of the world and how the deniers will lose a talking point.

Posted 89 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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