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
92 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

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 164 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 165 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 165 days ago.

RANDOM21

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

Posted 166 days ago.

Kunectdots

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

Posted 167 days ago.

Kunectdots

Climate Change "is a little chaotic right now".

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

Posted 167 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 169 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 169 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 169 days ago.

harryanderson

Forgot the link.

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

Posted 169 days ago.

harryanderson

“When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.”

And does Lindzen have a political agenda?

According to the Weekly Standard, yes.

“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.”

Posted 169 days ago.

Kunectdots

I'll forward your concerns to China.

1.4 billion people laughing can probably be heard all the way back here.

h ttp://w ww.worldometers.i nfo/world-population/china-population/

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

“When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research.”

BINGO! The issue has become part of political agendas, so that many people mistrust the scientific conclusions of a large majority of the world’s climate scientists.

Hopefully, the counter climate change propaganda movement that has caused this irrational mistrust will soon fade away. After all, they’ve even lost the support of the big oil companies.

Seems like Lindzen and I agree on a lot of things. Thanks for giving me the forum.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

“MIT Professor Richard Lindzen, a leading figure in the climate change movement, pointed out the absurdity of blaming every weather event on global warming and climate change.”

Lindzen nails it here, too. It is absurd to blame every warm spell on global warming. It’s equally absurd to cite every cold spell as evidence that global warming has stopped.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

“The changes that have occurred due to global warning are too small to account for,”

He’s right here, too. The changes so far have been minor. However, almost every climate scientist (Lindzen being one of a few outliers) says the future changes will be significant.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

“Even many of the people who are supportive of sounding the global warning alarm back off from catastrophism. It’s the politicians and the green movement that like to portray catastrophe.”

Correct. That’s why we should listen to the scientists, not politicians like Jim Inhofe or the “green movement,” whoever that is. And scientists, even Lindzen, almost universally “support the theory of man-made global warming.”

Richard Lindzen’s words on climate science are worthy of serious consideration. Whenever he talks about the science, we learn he, as stillhere put it, “supports the theory of global warming.”

And I trust Lindzen’s word on the science more than I trust his word on the politics. He’s a scientist, not a politician.

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s Dr. Lindzen’s attitude toward those who think global warming “has nothing to do with CO2.”

"Dr. Lindzen accepts the elementary tenets of climate science. He agrees that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, calling people who dispute that point 'nutty.'”

“h ttp://w ww.nytimes.c om/2012/05/01/science/earth/clouds-effect-on-climate-change-is-last-bastion-for-dissenters.html?pagewanted=3&_r=0

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s an example of straight talk from a scientist who thinks the effects of CO2 may not lead to drastic disruptions.

“The burning of oil, gas, and especially coal pumps carbon dioxide and other gases into the atmosphere, where they allow the sun’s heat to penetrate to the Earth’s surface but impede its escape, thus causing the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm. Essentially everybody, Lindzen included, agrees.”

htt p://ww w.weeklystandard.co m/articles/what-catastrophe_773268.html?page=1

While Dr. Lindzen disagrees with most climate scientists on the magnitude of the effect, he agrees that CO2 “(causes) the lower atmosphere and the Earth’s surface to warm.”

Posted 170 days ago.

Kunectdots

So, when does the dispelling start?

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

"LOLOLOL what did you blame the 1880 record on Harry? SUVs?"

1880 wasn't the record for the first six months; it was the year the records started. 2010 was the hottest first six months before 2015.

Posted 171 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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