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
95 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

Its not like you can believe its real. You do and you lose your Republican membership!

Now thats funny! LOL!

Posted 1098 days ago.

mythravere

It makes perfect sense. A volcanic eruption can and has cooled the planet before. Many times in fact. Cleaner air allows more sunlight through which will heat the planet more and that heat will become trapped by the Co2...more.

Posted 1099 days ago.

"Laughs" and remains ignorant. What else is new

Posted 1099 days ago.

An interesting subject. Google "clean air causes global warming."

Posted 1099 days ago.

harryanderson

No, it's not.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

“Is it not true that the bible places the earth at about 6000 years old?”

I've heard different takes on that. Some have added up all the years of the patriarchs and come up with 6000. They're basing their analysis on a literal interpretation of the word “day” in God created the world in 6 days.

Others say that's not necessarily the case, based on another scripture that says something about a day being as a thousand years to God.

I don't obsess over which interpretation is correct because it doesn't require any action on my part. I just trust God to guide me when I need to make a decision.

Anthropogenic climate change is different, in part because it requires decision. (Not acting is a decision.)

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

And I’m quite happy to relate that the Bible and the work of its author, Jesus Christ, teach us how to remain patient and peaceful when faced with opposition. It teaches us that it’s okay to be angry, and how to be angry without responding in anger, and how to not let the sun set on our anger. Jesus Christ rescues us from the prison of our anger. And any other thing that threatens to imprison us.

That’s pretty cool with me, and I thank you for giving me the chance to point it out.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, Tiredofit, cards on the table. Let’s talk about what you see as a gap in my logic and reason. As I understand, the gap you see comes from my believing the Bible on some issues and science on others. And that’s a question I should answer.

Here’s my answer: I take the Bible as my most credible source. After that, I take physical evidence. The Bible and physical evidence often conflict.

The Bible doesn’t directly address every issue; it leaves believers free to decide some issues based on general principles and physical evidence. Climate change is one of these. The origin of man is not one. God clearly states that he created man. So I view the two issues as separate.

When explaining my views, I often quote the Bible. I understand and expect that some don’t accept the Bible as a credible source.

People of faith know that many view us as inconsistent, even hypocritical. The Bible warns us believers to expect opposition and even persecution; it goes with the territory.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

“I understand why you are reluctant to answer the question as it exposes your hypocrisy on the topic.”

With that comment, you return to your favorite subject. You don’t really want to discuss political conspiracies about climate science, despite the fact that you revived the subject after it had become moribund.

No, you don’t want to talk about political conspiracies at all.

You want to talk about me.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

There’s no sense in my asking the question again. Clearly, you are unwilling or unable to clearly state what your beliefs are, much less defend them. Since you won’t or can’t clarify and defend your views, I can see only 3 options available to me—I can guess at your views and their basis, I can conclude that the issue isn’t particularly important to you, or I can continue to expose your weakness.

None of these 3 options promotes rational discourse. Guessing risks drawing wrong conclusions, expecting a serious answer on an unimportant subject is futile, and continuing to expose your weakness is cruel. Therefore, I see no reason to ask again whether or not you think climate science is a conspiracy to bring about political change.

With that, you are free to ask me anything you like about my views on political conspiracies surrounding climate change.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course the climate has been changing for millions of years by natural processes. The recent changes caused primarily by human activity, however, are more rapid and therefore threaten a significant portion of the infrastructure we have built.

There you go. You see, I’m unafraid to answer questions. I find it very interesting that you ask a question, and one whole minute later you post, “Why dodge the simple question harry?”

I promptly answered your question, but you haven’t answered the one I asked again and again. You haven’t clearly stated whether or not you think climate science is a conspiracy to bring about political change.

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

What do carbon dating and the age of the earth have to do with political conspiracies about atmospheric carbon?

Posted 1102 days ago.

harryanderson

I consider the opinion of over 90% of the world's climate scientists to be the best information currently available in the context of a discussion on climate science.

The other issues you raise, like the origin of man, are straw men, and don't seem to have any relevance to a discussion of climate science.

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

“I don’t recall your using the word conspiracy.”

Read that sentence again, Tiredofit, paying particular attention to the words “your using.” I meant to acknowledge that I didn’t recall that you ever used that word. Perhaps I could have phrased that more artfully, like this: I don’t recall that you ever used the word conspiracy.

I gladly admit that I characterized your belief as belief in a conspiracy. Was my characterization accurate? Do you or do you not believe that over 90% of the world's climate scientists are conspiring in, or plotting, a hoax designed to bring about change in the political status quo? Please state your beliefs clearly.

Posted 1103 days ago.

There is no evidence that climate change is caused by man. The earth changed drastically when humans were very scarce. And before coal and oil were discovered.

Those who want us to regress to those days are wishing for conditions that would kill many people. Including starvation, and death from the lack of medical uses of oil derivatives. Just like the banning of DDT caused untold numbers of deaths in developing countries.

Get rich Al Gore and Michael Moore are laughing like hyenas. And liberals are jumping with joy when they force others to follow their corrupt controlling agenda.

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

I don’t recall your using the word conspiracy. You used the word hoax, if I remember correctly. A hoax is a deception. A conspiracy is a group of people collaborating for a nefarious purpose. A hoax is one form of nefarious purpose. The fact that many scientists are involved in this so-called hoax would suggest a conspiracy.

So do you or do you not believe that over 90% of the world's climate scientists are conspiring in, or plotting, a hoax designed to bring about change in the political status quo? Please state your beliefs clearly.

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

“So to be clear, science is NOT the basis for ALL your beliefs, is that correct?”

Of course not. I’ve tried to honest and sincere about that. I’ve tried to make it clear that the Bible greatly influences my beliefs. Furthermore, the other bases I listed before—culture, training, physical evidence, and group identification—all influence my beliefs to some extent.

I doubt that any sane person living in a free society is influenced only by science, or religion, or culture, or any other single basis. Most humans are much too complex for that.

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

I refer you to my previous statement, which you may have overlooked, in which I said that beliefs may have other bases besides physical evidence.

Furthermore, science isn't the only sound basis for a belief. None of us is a perfectly rational creature.

So, what is the basis for your belief that climate science is a political conspiracy?

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

Any reasonable person should agree that beliefs aren't always based on science. Beliefs may have origins such as religion, cultural preference, training, group identification, and so on.

With that in mind, are you now willing to restate the basis for your apparent belief that climate science is a political conspiracy we should fear?

Posted 1103 days ago.

harryanderson

There you go raising the straw man again. What does the age of the earth have to do with political paranoia surrounding climate science?

Posted 1103 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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