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
101 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

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

Posted 967 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 968 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 968 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 968 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 968 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 968 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 968 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 968 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 968 days ago.

harryanderson

“Quite the contrary, Harry. I have on more than one occasion gave reasons for my skepticism.”

I must confess that your straw men have distracted me, apparently causing me to miss your explanation as to why you fear that thousands of scientists at many different institutions working under various political structures within competing cultures are collaborating in a secret agenda to lie about the laws of physics and in order to achieve a worldwide political goal.

For my convenience, would you care to restate the reasons for your fears?

Posted 968 days ago.

harryanderson

Definition time. Paranoia is BASELESS or excessive suspicions of the motives of others. (emphasis added)

Posted 969 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

This discussion has followed a familiar pattern. Whenever you feel challenged to provide evidence for your beliefs, you bring up a straw man to distract attention from your inability to support those beliefs. In this case, the straw man you brought up was the origin of man. Then, when politely asked how the straw man (the origin of man) related to the discussion at hand (fear that climate science is a political conspiracy), you followed your usual desperate pattern—calling names like hypocrite, fraud, and obtuse.

Tiredofit, the only thing for which you “have made a clear and unimpeachable case” is your tendency to use straw men and smears.

Posted 969 days ago.

harryanderson

What does the origin of man have to do with fear of a political conspiracy organized by scientists?

Posted 969 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree with tiredofit: the politics of paranoid fear are a factor in this discussion.

In my opinion, only a fearful, paranoid person could believe without any credible evidence that thousands of scientists at many different institutions working under various political structures within competing cultures are collaborating in a secret agenda to lie about the laws of physics and chemistry in order to achieve a worldwide political goal.

Posted 969 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

HEY IMBECILES all the nonesense you have been spewing for years about Climate change is proven wrong so now your (self-proclaimed) scintestestestes) are changing their theories (lies and lies) once again.

My question is: HOW MANY IMBECILES will still come here and cray and talk about how true its is.

Stupid imbeciles

Posted 969 days ago.

harryanderson

Maybe some who study the science of anthropogenic climate change are playing politics, but I know of none.

The only ones I know who are playing politics are those who aren't seriously considering the scientific and engineering aspects. This includes individuals on both sides of the debate.

Posted 978 days ago.

I wish I could agree with your regarding playing politics Harry.

I'm sorry, I can't.

Posted 978 days ago.

harryanderson

AaronS,

I quite agree with you that we should re-activate our nuclear power program. As you rightly state, it's one of the best options we have available at the present time.

However, I don't agree that "they're doing nothing but playing politics with fossil fuels as a means of taxing it in just another redistribution of wealth scheme."

I know some who are studying the effects of anthropogenic carbon on climate, and they are definitely not "playing politics" or in any way involved in a "distribution of wealth scheme." These whom I know, like me, see it as an engineering rather than a political problem.

Posted 978 days ago.

RANDOM21

There's a new kid in town, or at least Herman has a new name. He also just discovered copy and paste.

Posted 980 days ago.

The Thorium Fuel Cycle has been around since the early 60's so research is nothing new. It's another area of nuclear energy in which the left will allow research but if full scale production is proposed, they go ballistic and start filing lawsuits. That's the reason there have been no new nuclear power plants placed in commission since the 60's. Until the left gets serious about replacing fossil fuels with something that is actually viable, I'll stand by my assessment that they're doing nothing but playing politics with fossil fuels as a means of taxing it in just another redistribution of wealth scheme.

As for the safety record, of the 99 listed nuclear accidents on file, Chernobyl is the only one that has associated loss of life. The others were contained. Given the scrutiny of nuclear energy, it is as safe as they come, at least in my humble opinion.

Posted 983 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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