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 mythravere
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

Everyone will be able to see your posts and what I am saying about them and come to the inescapable conclusion that you really have no issue with the science of climate change(you know nothing about it nor do you care about the science).

You position stems from a current that as been running its course in the rightwing since at least Obama has been elected.

Resist anything from the left.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

It matters not if you ignore me by the way.

The issues I raise about you are going to show the weakness in your argument and lay bare your motivations.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

Are you capable of formulating an opinion outside what is considered acceptable in your chosen social sphere?

Peer pressure too much for you?

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

You know nothing of the science.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

You won't ignore me.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

True or false.

Your position on this issue is a direct result of staying within the bounds of what is considered an accepted position by the Republicans that you consider your peers.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

No myth, I will be ignoring you

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO HARRY< I To boil this all down, you dismiss all but 75 climatologist answers to two vague questions in 2009. THat sum it up? would like to sum up your answer with this, is it fair>?

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

You're talking to me now.

If that isn't suitable for you...leave.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

Why do you say no Tiredofit?

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

Myth I cannot deal with your idiocy right now. I was talking to Harry.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

Explain why we should not just assume your grievance with this issue is 100% political based in nature.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change deserves to go to prison for at least 30 months for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job, say federal prosecutors. WE KNOW THEY ARE HARD AT IT>

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

Why do you have a problem with man being the cause of climate change?

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

This argument is becoming muddied up by the wrong details.

Its time to focus on your motivation.

Lets talk about that.

Posted 95 days ago.

mythravere

Those two questions that vex you can be enriched with this little gem.

How much and by what process can planetary warming be attributed to natural phenomenon?

You say its all natural.

Explain why you believe that.

Show us the proof.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

To boil this all down, you dismiss all but 75 climatologist answers to two vague questions in 2009. THat sum it up?

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

You really have to reach to say those two questions represent anything specific.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

What points are there to address, you summarily dismiss all my surveys as NON Science.

Posted 95 days ago.

Tiredofit

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

How is a YES to these two questions translate to consensus with the IPPC and all the Global warming nonsense of 2014

Posted 95 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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