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
66 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

and, of course, Santorum was clear trying to mislead the public when he said"The most recent survey of climate scientists said about 57 percent don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2."

Posted 272 days ago.

harryanderson

Politifact takes on lies from both political parties.

Posted 272 days ago.

harryanderson

The fact-checking site Politifact (which is politically balanced, since it awarded its “Lie of the Year” to Pres. Obama in 2013 and to Mitt Romney’s campaign in 2012) has ruled that Rick Santorum was “inaccurate and misleading” when he claimed “The most recent survey of climate scientists said about 57 percent don’t agree with the idea that 95 percent of the change in the climate is caused by CO2.”

One of the authors of the survey cited by Santorum said, “Basically, Santorum’s claim is not consistent with the results from our survey.”

Santorum has called climate change “a hoax.” Those who do so seem to always be inaccurate and misleading.

Posted 272 days ago.

harryanderson

It's good news that the US has been spared extreme hurricanes for awhile.

Here are a few thoughts.

The link between extreme weather events and global warming is far from certain, since these events have many causes.

The 2007 study referred to a century. Ten years is not a century.

The 2007 study referred to Atlantic hurricanes, of which the US coast is only a part. Just ask the folks in Haiti.

"Over the past decade, scientists have come to a general consensus that while globally there will be about as many — or perhaps even fewer — tropical cyclones as there are now, they will become more intense."

ht tp://w ww.climatecentral.or g/gallery/graphics/10-year-anniversary-of-hurricane-katrina

Posted 276 days ago.

RANDOM21

Major hurricanes are cat3 or greater. Sandy was barely a cat1 by the time it made landfall. Hitting at high tide contributed to the large surge.

Posted 276 days ago.

RANDOM21

Touch screen stutter strikes again.

Posted 276 days ago.

RANDOM21

The lies on Fox are probably the guest Liberals that are frothing at the mouth trying to make their absurd point of view plausible.

Posted 276 days ago.

RANDOM21

The lies on Fox are probably the guest Liberals that are frothing at the mouth trying to make their absurd point of view plausible.

Posted 276 days ago.

RANDOM21

The lies on Fox are probably the guest Liberals that are frothing at the mouth trying to make their absurd point of view plausible.

Posted 276 days ago.

Kunectdots

ohwiseone - One of your shortcomings, amongst many I'd imagine, is your refusal to believe that others may be able to think for themselves. It's also possible that they can think at a higher level than you, with less information provided to arrive at an accurate cause and effect conclusion.

You remind me so very much of a fellow (anti-union) employee I once had the misfortune of knowing. He too was often citing something I would say by telling others that "----- didn't say that." Those union organizers wrote it for him."

It's not your fault that you can't process information unless it's slathered in Useful Idiot drivel. It's probably a latent deficiency buried deep in your DNA. "Leaders", like Obama, are appreciative of your zombie-like adherence to their perspectives.

Posted 278 days ago.

RANDOM21

OWHIZONE : pot calling kettle. Libs always accuse others of what they themselves are most guilty. Lack of tolerance should be their motto. Having their heads up their leaders' rectal orifice so blocks their own ability to see.

Posted 278 days ago.

Kunectdots

Random - Self deletion/editing would be a nice option. Some of the things that Ohwiseone posts on here causes a near immediate effect of flames spewing from my eyes and smoke from my arse.

If you read my posts and I've made spelling or grammatical errors, you can bet it was in either a fit of rage or hilarity caused by Ohwiseone.

Posted 279 days ago.

RANDOM21

When the comment box doesn't respond and you hit, post, again and again you sometimes get multiple posts. Almost like a stutter. Wish posters had option to delete their own mistakes.

Posted 280 days ago.

Kunectdots

Hey 'Fluffy'! I saw another documentary on HAARP last week. Verrrrrry interesting!

Too bad you avoid cutting edge science (that started in 1985).

Posted 280 days ago.

RANDOM21

I call it the "stuttering touchscreen" . When in doubt touch again.

Posted 281 days ago.

Kunectdots

Stillhere - Thought I would just add a little topical, Hollywood drama to Ohwiseone's otherwise arid, pointless postings.

Posted 282 days ago.

Kunectdots

Climate Change "is a little chaotic right now".

h ttps://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=jwTLOwV9k1c

Posted 282 days ago.

harryanderson

Thanks for giving me a forum. Have a nice day.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

So Lindzen studies whether “public funding” of research has biased the science.

Maybe, but consider some private organizations who have researched global warming and who have the most to lose if we move away from fossil fuels. That would be the multinational oil giants like Shell, Exxon-Mobile, and BP.

The oil giants have concluded that CO2-induced climate change is a problem.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

Let’s examine Lindzen’s function at the Cato Institute. Does he do scientific research there? No. Cato isn’t a scientific organization. It calls itself a “a public policy research organization.”

“At Cato, Dr. Lindzen focuses on the interaction between science and policymakers. He studies whether the move from largely private funding to public support has introduced biases into science and the public policies informed by science.”

ht tp://w ww.cato.or g/people/richard-lindzen

Lindzen is retired from scientific research. He gets paid to espouse his political views. What could be more of a “political agenda” than that.

Posted 284 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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