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

mythravere

"Who makes money with the lies? Easy, easy, easy. The climate changers who are making movies and TV shows,writing books, selling stuff (even t shirts)."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!!!!

Reeeeeeallllly?

LOL!

You say that while the little fact that those who run the campaigns and other forms of support for rightwing politicians and policies take your money and run with it. Which is provable by their very own tax forms. The vast majority of money they raise goes into expenses with less the 10% in a lot of cases going toward the actual cause.

Whats funny is that they know exactly what to say and what fears to coddle to get you to toss your money at them.

LOL!

Posted 478 days ago.

moderation

Good interpretation,harryanderson.

Posted 478 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere, I didn't say he had a "conservative political outlook." That was the Weekly Standard.

Posted 478 days ago.

You should answer your own ideotic question. No warning is going on. It is fraud and lies.

Who makes money with the lies? Easy, easy, easy. The climate changers who are making movies and TV shows,writing books, selling stuff (even t shirts).

The radical warmers who get enormous fees for speaking at colleges and money making tours. Lawyers like Bobby Kennedy Jr.The wacky college professors and pseudo scientists who get huge grants for fake studies and programs. The green businesses that rake in billions of our dollars before they go belly up..

And we can't forget the politcians who scare people to get elected and rich.

Posted 478 days ago.

harryanderson

Second problem: Lindzen’s confident predictions that global warming will cause no harm. The Weekly Standard reports:

“Lindzen also disputes the accuracy of the computer models that climate scientists rely on to project future temperatures. He contends that they oversimplify the vast complexity of the Earth’s climate and, moreover, that it’s impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability.”

The climate IS complex, but here’s Lindzen’s problem: If it’s “impossible to untangle man’s effect on the climate from natural variability,” how can Lindzen predict that global warming will result in no harm?

Lindzen contradicts himself.

If predictions are impossible, why are Lindzen’s own predictions any better than the predictions of the majority of other climate scientists? Again, Lindzen behaves like those he criticizes.

Posted 478 days ago.

harryanderson

First problem: The Weekly Standard shows Lindzen’s political bias.

“One frustrating feature of the climate debate is that people’s outlook on global warming usually correlates with their political views. So if a person wants low taxes and restrictions on abortion, he probably isn’t worried about climate change. And if a person supports gay marriage and raising the minimum wage, he most likely thinks the threat from global warming warrants costly public-policy remedies. And of course, even though Lindzen is an accomplished climate scientist, he has his own political outlook—a conservative one. “

So, while Lindzen accuses others of having a political agenda, he has one himself. He’s behaving like those he criticizes.

Posted 478 days ago.

harryanderson

Dr. Lindzen is worthy of serious consideration. For example,

“Lindzen doesn’t deny that the climate has changed or that the planet has warmed. ‘We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800,’ he tells me. There’s a caveat, though: It’s increased by ‘a very small amount. We’re talking about tenths of a degree [Celsius]. We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas. All other things kept equal, [there has been] some warming. As a result, there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?’”

htt p://ww w.weeklystandard.co m/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=2

But I have two problems with Lindzen: I think he lets his political agenda color his thinking and I wonder about his predictions. In both of these areas, Lindzen behaves a lot like those whom he criticizes.

Posted 478 days ago.

Ohwiseone can't post without his obsession with faux, whatever that is. Liberals are lost without the words faux, hate, Koch bros., racism and war on women. Lol Most people have never heard of the Koch bros. Soros is much more famous.

Posted 478 days ago.

mythravere

Oh and I hate to point this out again. Stillhere formerly known as Tiredofit it got banned on this site and the Marietta Times site.

It takes a certain amount of bitterness to post in a manner that gets you banned. Just sayin.

Posted 478 days ago.

mythravere

"The level of bitterness they bring is quite clear but a rational person would have to wonder why."

LOL! Really? This from the guy who repeatedly calls out people as socialists when they plainly state they are not. This from the guy who repeatedly stated that those who believe in the validity of this issue are wanting to see the government take over the energy industry? Even after we said we do not support such actions.

THIS from the guy who on the Marrietta Times forum resorted to calling another poster a fluffer?

This from the guy who made fun of and used against me a math disability I stated I had. Repeatedly using the term shortbus.

Really? LOL! Such hypocrisy.

Posted 478 days ago.

mythravere

"And they ARE socialists, some like Myth are just not bright enough to realize the ultimate end to their goals." Stillhere

There you go falsely equating me with a political movement I do not subscribe to.

But I do understand why you do that.

Its a doubt casting tactic.

All that does is show that this issue and your disagreement with it is of a political nature.

After all why would you point out (falsely) the political leanings of people if it was just about the facts of the issue itself?

Posted 478 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! Then you claim as you have before that our interest in this issue has reached the level of religion.

Well the same can be said about you.

This crusade is so important to you that you just had to come back after getting banned.

Posted 478 days ago.

mythravere

"Perhaps that explains the visceral reaction by posters on this forum NO?" Stillhere.

Oh goodness lol!

If anyone is having a visceral reaction its you buckwheat.

All one has to do is to look at how you debate.

I mean it wasn't I who got banned off of two sites because of my behaviour.

That was you. And here you are back under another username doing the same things that got you booted before.

Posted 478 days ago.

harryanderson

Now we see the political agenda. Stillhere invokes Dr. Lindzen for his scientific expertise. Then, he discovers that some of Dr. Lindzen’s scientific statements disagree with Stillhere’s political agenda. So he starts to ignore his former guru, Lindzen, and instead focus on a reporter’s perceived politics.

And this happens each time a counter climate changer tries to get into the scientific area. Like Joe Bast of Heartland said, “We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well, but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

Later, kiddies.

Posted 479 days ago.

Desperation time for them, Stillhere. They will never prove man made global warming. A useless waste of time.

Posted 479 days ago.

harryanderson

And again, I didn't post Gillis' opinion. I posted Lindzen's opinion. If you can show where Lindzen has disavowed what Gillis reported, let's hear it.

Posted 479 days ago.

harryanderson

It won't work, Stillhere. You can't erase what Lindzen told Gillis with your political opinions of Gillis. If you can demonstrate that Gillis wasn't truthful, do so. Otherwise, his report stands.

Posted 479 days ago.

moderation

Your insulting behaviors are pathetic and immature,ithink.

Posted 479 days ago.

moderation

He brought forth no evidence, ithink.His case was merely political.And you signed off on it.Did you actually read his effort?Do you tell your children they can't have an opinion until they are degreed at least at a bachelors' level.Did the mention of the tea party offend you?

Posted 479 days ago.

harryanderson

Here's a tidbit to further demonstrate that Gillis' article is not an opinion piece. The conservative Weekly Standard calls Gillis a "science writer."

"As the science writer Justin Gillis explained in a 2012 New York Times piece, Lindzen 'says the earth is not especially sensitive to greenhouse gases because clouds will react to counter them, and he believes he has identified a specific mechanism. On a warming planet, he says, less coverage by high clouds in the tropics will allow more heat to escape to space, countering the temperature increase.'”

ht tp://w ww.weeklystandard.co m/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=3

So your opinion, Stillhere, that the NYT news story is an "opinion piece," is apparently not shared by one of the country's most credible and respected (in my opinion) conservative publications.

Posted 479 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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