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
4 days 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

harryanderson

I'm not using the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

"A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous."

grammar.about.c om/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

The key word here is "famous." I'm citing them for their EXPERTISE, not their fame.

But I apply a standard beyond that. The source should not be cited if it's considered immune from criticism. That's why I cite peer-reviewed stuff; it's been criticized by other experts.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

"I want to see proof that CO2 is causing the earth to warm"

Like I said, look in the scientific literature.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

Look in the papers for the proof. Take it up with the scientists. I've moved on.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

I believe the experts over an anonymous internet poster.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

Take it up with Mann. I've moved on.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

"OK but has it been proven by scientific methods?"

Read the 43 papers and take it up with their authors, if you like.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

I meant that you cited strong evidence the hockey stick graph was ACCURATE, since it is "supported by more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records," as you said.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

You ask if the hockey stick graph is inaccurate, but you already cited strong evidence that it is.

As you quoted, the hockey stick graph "was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records."

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

Since 2/3 of my fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree it's beneficial to reduce our fossil fuel use, I've moved on to figuring out how best to do that.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

I knew you'd reject the 43 papers without looking at them.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm on to solutions.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

"If the rate of warming is unprecedented as you state, that would be some level of proof that something is different about this warming trend, Please show where this data is"

Here's a list of 43 scientific papers showing the recent warming is unprecedented in the last 2000 years.

en.wikipedia****/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

I know you won't bother to look at this scientific data, since you've said it's not a scientific debate.

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

"how was this data gathered from 12000 years ago"

It must have came from the same place that told you what didn't happen back then..haha.

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

"TELL ME WHERE"

You mean after all these years...after all the times people have shown you...you have no idea where to look up the info or how?

Are you that stupid? I mean really..are you that mentally deficient?

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- you know Tired won't accept that. It doesn't fall into his view of the world.

He'll probably say it's all political and the govt is making NASA say those things.

Of course ignoring the times that he used NASA for his own arguments.

He won't give an alternative explanation for why the temps are going up, he'll simple say what he believes is not causing it and smile stupidly like he accomplished something.

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

"what was the rate 12000 years ago and where did you find tha data"

Oh Tired, have you gathered your info on what didn't cause something to happen thousands of years ago yet?

We would love to see how you have proven a negative :)

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, I cite scientific testimony as evidence.

"Scientists note that there are two new and different twists to today's changing climate: (1) The globe is warming at a faster rate than it ever has before; and (2) Humans are the main reason Earth is warming."

science.nasa.gov/earth-science/big-questions/is-the-global-earth-system-changing-and-what-are-the-consequences/

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

Tired..is this your style of debate....just posting partial phrases to bury the fact you have never offered any scientific or literary proof for your position?

Posted 302 days ago.

Kendall78

"as long as I don't respond"

The point of debating is to exchange ideas. With you, intelligent converse is impossible. You do not discuss, you gibber.

Posted 302 days ago.

harryanderson

"the best experts money can buy"

I don't believe the vast majority of climate scientists have lied in order to get government grants.

Posted 302 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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