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
2 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

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

You complained, “Gee a liberal court ruling if favor of socialist position.”

That ruling was made in 2007 by the US Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts. “Massachusetts vs. EPA” doesn’t mean it was a Massachusetts court; it means the Commonwealth of Massachusetts was the plaintiff.

Most people wouldn’t consider the Roberts Court a liberal court given to issuing socialist opinions.

Say, Tiredofit,

Do you suppose I could say “counter climate change movement” without you whining that I’ve used, in your parlance, “a derogatory term”?

After all, you did call “denier” a derogatory term.

I’d hate to upset your delicate sensitivities!!

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

So righties. Are you winning this argument?

Are you beating me? Hmmmm!

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

Goodness I must be sadist. I mean why else would I continue to argue with stupid?

Because you know what they say about arguing with stupid...they'll beat you with experience.

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

Why is it these (clearly right wing) "news" outlets must dress themselves up and put on this false facade to give themselves credibility?

Not to mention hiding the heck out of their funding sources!

Its..just so important that you don't/can't look behind the curtain.

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhahahahahahah!

CNS News! The RIGHT News! Right NOOOOOOOOOOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (deadpan)

Formerly know as the Conservative News Service.

So....lol...The right news right now....is that the same thing as another news service being "fair" and "balanced"?

Hmmm..bhwaaahahahahahahah!

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

Oh Fraudie McFraud, you do amuse.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

Gee a liberal court ruling if favor of socialist position. Massachusetts REALLY HARRY, they buy this Leftist BS, blow me over with a feather, wait a minute, don't blow, your breath contains POLUTANTS.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

You people are a riot

Posted 115 days ago.

harryanderson

As to whether CO2 is a pollutant, the Supreme Court, in Massachusetts vs. EPA, gave the EPA authority to declare it a pollutant under the Clean Air Act (CCA).

The Court ruled: “The (EPA) Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.”[9]

According to the CAA, an air pollutant is "any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive . . . substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air".

And the Court stated that "greenhouse gases fit well within the CAA’s capacious definition of air pollutant."

Posted 115 days ago.

harryanderson

R1KRA8 advises us to “count the cash.”

However, the counter climate change movement (CCCM) has made that impossible. Robt. J. Brulle of Drexel U. attempted to count the cash flowing to 91 groups involved in the CCCM.

Brulle concluded:

“A large portion of the funding for CCCM organizations is untraceable. Despite extensive data compilation and analysis, only a fraction of contributions to CCCM organizations can be specifically accounted for from public records. The sizable amount of undisclosed funding, or ‘dark money’ involved in the CCCM obscures the resource mobilization practices of the CCCM.”

htt p://drexel.edu/~/media/Files/now/pdfs/Institutionalizing%20Delay%20-%20Climatic%20Change.ashx

Posted 115 days ago.

So salt kills. So do windmills......eagles, bats,sea gulls, etc. People are also complaining about noise polution, vibrations and other problems

Oh, for a carefree liberal utopia. Free healthcare, free birth control, freedom from consequences of doing what's right or wrong, and a world free frrom natural climate changes. All caused by liberals' superior brain power.

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

If it helps you any, please refer to the following: politifact.c om/texas/statements/2013/dec/13/barry-smitherman/scientific-consensus-remains-planet-warming/ w w w.unep.o r g/pdf/wmo_report.p d f

Posted 115 days ago.

Kendall78

"but co2 is not a pollutant"

Neither is salt but it will kill the fish in the aquarium just the same. Too much of any chemical can be deadly and have adverse reactions to biological lifeforms.

I would suggest that you study up on something called the carbon cycle. Yes carbon is part of our natural environment but not at these level. And yes, carbon dioxide does assist in trapping heat in the atmosphere.

Posted 115 days ago.

To myth from the rock.

h ttp://cnsnews.c om/news/article/what-global-warming-2012-data-confirms-earth-cooling-trend

Merry Christmas,myth. Here is something guaranteed to help you out of the misery where you seem to dwell. For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believith in Him, shall not perish, but have everlasting life.So simple, even a rock gets it.

Posted 115 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yes but it doesn't change the climate.

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

Oxygen isn't a pollutant but in high enough concentrations it can kill you.

Apollo 1 for example.

Posted 115 days ago.

mythravere

The earth is not warming? Hahaha LOL!

I guess the ice sheets and glaciers that are MELTING in more places than not are melting because of some new physical process that doesn't involve heat.

Which to a point is true because of sublimation. Also helping along with that is the changes taking place in how much snow falls.

But to say flat out that there is no warming. Either you are straight up lying or you have the intelligence of a rock.

Posted 115 days ago.

He can't read.

Posted 116 days ago.

Tiredofit

Ahhh but co2 is not a pollutant

Posted 116 days ago.

Kendall78

Ithink- you would be the person that would dump salt into an aquarium and be shocked that the fish died inside.

Is it natural for so much carbon and other pollutants to be put into the atmosphere in such a small amount of time?

If no, then which is more likely...that there would be no adverse effects or that there would be?

You also say that there is no way to know. Are you familiar with that volcano that erupted in Asia a few decades ago? Remember that their was a measurable change in the temperature of the Earth from that one event? So yes, there are ways of knowing that throwing up mass amounts of pollutants would make the Earth get warmer.

Posted 116 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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