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 hours ago.
by harryanderson
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

Tiredofit

So Harry, when you return, please explain what tobbaco companies have to do with my assertion that climate scientists feel justified in lying to us to get our attention political action and more MONEY.

Posted 89 days ago.

mythravere

"This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirection" Tiredofit.

You mean you being asked specific questions and either flat out refusing to answer them or saying it is us who have to prove what we are saying while you don't and/or bringing up topics like the past one that has little weight on this issue in the bigger picture.

You mean to tell me that isn't deflecting and misdirecting.

Ohhhhhhh! LOL! I smell a hypocrite.

Posted 89 days ago.

mythravere

And dimwit what pray tell do you think they are uncertain of anyways? I guess using your logic when they point to uncertainty you think in your feeble mind it means the whole shebang?

But I am betting the uncertainty lies with the effects of global warming and the time scales in which they will take place. Plus the timescales of the needed actions to limit the effects of man made climate change.

Sheesh you take one little data point and use it to discount the whole issue.

Talk about dishonest.

Posted 89 days ago.

mythravere

All this arguing over bullchit he said she said bologna....but you still will not talk about the actual warming of this planet and what is causing it if man is not the cause.

Me thinks you pick your battle carefully.

Posted 89 days ago.

mythravere

So I guess you being "right" means the shipping lanes in the north that are opening up aren't really happening? Right? LOL!

He11 we're headed for a new ice age. Huck yuck!

Posted 89 days ago.

mythravere

LOL! You think you won this debate. Ha! Thats funny!

I guess the question now is how much of the science is the result of "funding" being got that way.

Probably a drop in the bucket compared to what energy companies have spent in trying to thwart this message.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets take one more look at what she says in a moment of honesty............The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Then harry begs to know if I want to reduce uncertainty??? This is the biggest red herring of all since harry believes 97% of scientific thought is on his side and very certain. ( a myth I dispelled earlier). So if the science is settled, how do we reduce uncertainty??/? Priceless

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

The only pertinent question Harry is do you believe that climate scientists exaggerate in order to scare the public motivate politicians and increae funding? Or is the climate program director at NOAA wrong?

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Somehow harry attempts to change the topic about lying to get more funding into how sad it is that we fearful people want to cut off funding????? Where did that come from??? Then dear harry lights one up, and brings forth the strawman tobacco companies??///// pathetic really, not your best effort Harry.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

This is absolute textbook deflection and misdirectionIt's sad that some--those for who feel they would pay too high a social, ideological, political, or economic price if they accepted the scientific consensus--would cut off funding to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

They're afraid to reduce the uncertainty. They couldn't live with being wrong. Uncertainty is their friend. It's an old strategy. Back in the 60s, a tobacco company executive seeking to deny the link between smoking and cancer circulated a memo reading:

"Doubt is our product

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Work .calls, more like the bell saving you. .

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Your view means nothing to this subject, you challanged me for evidence of funding being tied to results. I give you the climate program director at Noaa admitting it. Now you try to talk about smoking and other nonsense.

Posted 89 days ago.

harryanderson

Hopefully, we can find some areas of agreement if you would like to reduce the scientific uncertainty. Unfortunately, I expect you to continue evading the question, even though I answered your question unequivocally.

We’ll see. For now, I have to get to work earning a living. I don’t get paid to opine about this.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Clearly it an admission of scare tactics with a political motive and a play for money.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

You don't view this as results being shaped to garner funding?

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's not my political game, its climate science that is exaggerating for profit.

Posted 89 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry is it ok to exaggerate(falsify) data to get attention, political action and funding?”

No. I wouldn’t do it. Like I’ve said over and over, I’m not interested your political games. It’s a scientific discussion. It’s an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

Would you like to remove all doubt about the issue so we could cooperate?

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

No way out for ya on this one Harry. No one said a thing about cutting existing funding, she wants MORE. And we sensational exaggerations is how you get there, lets just call it lying.

Posted 89 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lets take another look at what she said.The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.. .only way to assure any political action and THUS MORE FEDERAL FUNDING.

Posted 89 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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