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

harryanderson

What does Al Gore's venture capitalism have to do with the Republican platform? Is there a plank in the Republican platform that says Democrats shouldn't be allowed to profit from free-market principles?

Posted 470 days ago.

Producing money making false documentaries to scare people is wrong. It is also wrong to get huge government grants because of politics and like minded powerful friends.

Posted 470 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink's wrote that "(Gore's) venture capital firm invested in a small company."

I have issues with Gore, but being a capitalist isn't one of.them. In fact, I like to see liberals become capitalists. Being capitalists might help them see things more objectively.

Posted 470 days ago.

Are you supporting your republican party platform, harry?

Posted 470 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not a fan of Al Gore by any stretch of the imagination.

Still and all, he's a private citizen who has invested money to make money, and I see nothing wrong with that.

Posted 470 days ago.

Mod, let me help you. "Who" is not a bad word.

It is okay, and more appropriate, to say " who will continue to make money".

Posted 470 days ago.

moderation

A more appropriate question is whom may continue to make money?

Posted 470 days ago.

Kendall78

Have I missed Stillwrong's evidence that any global warming is due to only natural causes?

I doubt it but I thought it would be polite to ask.

Posted 471 days ago.

Yes, he sure acts like a fool, but he serves a purpose, Stillhere. He shows anyone who reads this forum how nasty, stupid , and dangerous to our country many liberals are. I know people who lurk here, but don't post.

Posted 471 days ago.

Maybe you haven't noticed, ohwiseone, but you don't get to decide what we talk about. This is not communist USA yet. Just strain your brain with your idiot questions. No one cares. You should work with the obama administration. No one there knows anything so you could fit right in. The IRS, ebola, Isis,Benghazi,climate hysteria, racial tensions,obamacare,border chaos..........all right up your alley of mutual expertise with the obama failures.

Posted 471 days ago.

Someone pulled the string and the baloney poured out again.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm outta here. My time is too valuable to get into a name-calling battle.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

"Lindzen is far more Learned that you will ever be."

In climate science, for sure. In political thought, I seriously doubt it. In fact, his sweeping generalizations show unsophisticated political thinking.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

And a very large majority of climate scientists, according to several studies, have analyzed the data and predicted anthropogenic global climate change will threaten infrastructure and crop yields in the future.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

And if Michael Mann has a political outlook, that doesn't mean anything to me, either. I'd never quote Michael Mann the political commentator because I don't care about his political leanings.

Climate scientists aren't there to provide public policy prescriptions, which involves other areas of expertise like economics. Climate scientists are there to analyze physical data and make predictions about future warming.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

I'd rather see Richard Lindzen be right than Michael Mann.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

So Dr. Lindzen ventures into the political realm, as is his right in a free society, but we need to remember that expertise in one area doesn’t mean expertise in another.

I said earlier that Dr. Lindzen’s opinions merit serious consideration. I should make it clear that his scientific opinions merit consideration because he’s has the education and background to speak authoritatively.

However, I don’t factor Dr. Lindzen’s political leanings into my decision on whether to accept the conclusions of the large majority of climate scientists. He’s not credible in this area.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

That should read, "Scientists provide evidence for their claims. Lindzen provides no evidence for this claim."

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

So is it Lindzen the scientist or Lindzen the political commentator speaking here?

The political commentator, of course. We know this for two reasons.

1. Scientists provide evidence for their claims. Lindzen provides none. It’s opinion.

2. Scientists appeal to the intellect, not the emotion. Notice the emotional language Lindzen employs here. “Crony capitalism” is a pejorative currently in vogue to attack “green” energy projects. And “see their eyes bulge” is intended to demean someone. (Lindzen doesn’t say whom he demeans, which is another departure from scientific dialogue; scientists should make their data available.)

It’s clear Lindzen functions as a political commentator, and that’s probably why he “no longer makes any effort to engage with the scientific community about his theories.” See the Weekly Standard article I sourced earlier.

Posted 471 days ago.

harryanderson

I wrote that I had 2 issues with Lindzen: 1. He has a political slant. 2. He makes confident predictions after saying the future climate is too complex to predict.

And now Stillhere has posted a statement that reinforces my first issue—Lindzen’s political focus.

Stillhere posted, “’Global warming, climate change, all these things are just a dream come true for politicians. The opportunities for taxation, for policies, for control, for crony capitalism are just immense, you can see their eyes bulge,’ Lindzen said.”

That is what the Weekly Standard called “a political outlook..”

Straight from the Lindzen lips.

Since Dr. Lindzen mixes politics, which nearly always involves lies, with science, which involves unbiased search for truth, how can we know which side of him speaks at any given time? Is it the scientist or the political commentator?

Posted 471 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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