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

And, Tiredofit, I believe you’re confused about who peers are. Peers aren’t buddies.

In law, peers are those of the same legal status. Otherwise, a peer is “a person who is equal to another in abilities, qualifications, age, background, and social status.”

If you really mean it when you say you want to avoid unproven political conspiracies, you’ll stop distorting definitions to imply a conspiracy among scientists. You have provided no evidence of a climate science conspiracy.

Posted 86 days ago.

harryanderson

“I will remind you that number represents 75 people.”

That doesn’t mean only 75 people are convinced by the evidence. I don’t know how you get that number from the Anderegg et. al. study from which I was quoting and which I cited earlier.

Let’s look at the actual figures. The Anderegg study involved 908 people it classified as “climate researchers,” ranking them for expertise and credibility. It divided them into those convinced by the evidence (CE) and unconvinced by the evidence (UE).

Of the entire 908, the CE group numbered 817, or 90%.

Of the top 200 researchers, 97.5% fell in the CE group.

Of the top 100, 97% fell in the CE group.

Of the top 50. 98% fell in the CE group.

And, “In addition to the striking difference in number of expert researchers between CE and UE groups, the distribution of expertise of the UE group is far below that of the CE group.

Posted 86 days ago.

Tiredofit

As for myself, I refuse to be swayed by paralyzing fear, hype, cultural disdain, and unproven political conspiracy theories.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

We have been through this time and again, peer reviewed does not mean TRUTHFUL or ACCURATE it just means your buddies agree.

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

I will remind you that number represents 75 people, and I guess your answer is NO they have not proven it they just theorize that it is likely. BIG DIFFERNECE

Posted 87 days ago.

harryanderson

They've certainly proved it enough to satisfy 97% of the climate scientists most actively publishing in peer-reviewed journals. To me, that represents a high probability.

And I notice you still produce no evidence of funding being tied to results. It's only your supposition.

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

You don't think there is any economic implication for those who are paid by Grants>? If the "crisis" went away, would the funding follow?

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

Have any PROVED IT?

Posted 87 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree. We should be wary of studies commissioned by organizations with a clear political or economic agenda. That includes both sides. Still, we shouldn’t discount or accept those studies without honestly critiquing them.

Earlier, you mentioned US government-commissioned studies conducted between 1993 and 2012. Evidently those studies were commissioned by both Democratic and Republican administrations and funded by both Democratic and Republican congresses. Governments with different political and ideological perspectives ordered and funded them. So we might expect different results. Is there any difference?

Different administrations may trumpet or downplay results depending on ideology, but is there any difference in the actual scientific findings? Have any government climate studies, even those conducted by conservatives in Bush’s administration, disproved the idea that greenhouse gases are changing the climate?

Posted 87 days ago.

Tiredofit

Every counter alarmist poll or study that is mentioned in the media is usually tied to the who funded it. On this very forum, the accusation has been made more than once that evidence was tainted due to oil company money. If there we no supposition that one could buy a result, why would it matter if oil companies paid for research? You believe that the Socialist Left Enviromarxists are not looking for result and those that give them the result seem to get more funding for more of the result. NO one ever said that there was a written connection between results and funding, that would be stupid. Doesn't take a genius to see where the money flows and why

Posted 87 days ago.

harryanderson

“Harry it is precisely the over reach of the left and the fact that alarmists ignore the signs that entrenched we who doubt.”

True. Some have appealed to emotion and hyped the evidence, and that hardens the position of those who, like yourself, consider it a political rather than a scientific discussion.

As for myself, I refuse to be swayed by paralyzing fear, hype, cultural disdain, and unproven political conspiracy theories.

Posted 88 days ago.

harryanderson

“I have said from day one that if you pay me enough I can correlate anything to climate change.”

And I have asked you from day one to show where any grantors gave grants on the condition that the recipients of those grants prove a connection between global climate change and greenhouse gases.

The first time I asked, you were honest, and admitted that you knew of no specific grant. Yet you keep repeating the charge. And after that first time, you also keep refusing to answer the question.

Posted 88 days ago.

harryanderson

“You true believers never give a second of thought to the leaked emails and the damning evidence. You dismiss it as nothing.”

I gave it plenty of thought at first, but after “six official investigations have cleared scientists of accusations of wrongdoing,” I don’t believe the stolen emails are “damning evidence.”

Now I have a question for you, if you dare to address it. Do you dismiss the six official investigations as nothing?

You may read more about these six official investigations from the Union of Concerned Scientists at

ht tp://ww w.ucsusa.or g/global_warming/solutions/fight-misinformation/debunking-misinformation-stolen-emails-climategate.html

Posted 88 days ago.

luvthesouth

Tiredofit, thank you and that was very thoughtful of you. use of this forum is something i enjoy and respect. to stray off-topic too far in my opinion is being rude to the other contributors. that is why i suggested that maybe the discussion should be continued elsewhere...everyone and anyone can join in on another thread. y'all enjoy the current topic and please continue

Posted 88 days ago.

Tiredofit

You true believers never give a second of thought to the leaked emails and the damning evidence. You dismiss it as nothing. I have said from day one that if you pay me enough I can correlate anything to climate change. Yes there are fossil fuel interests funding some of the denial sites won't you admit the reverse is also true.

Posted 88 days ago.

Tiredofit

So harry I guess it is a political discussion after all

Posted 88 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's the holocaust denial rhetoric and the ridiculous witch burning talk that does not help your cause.

Posted 88 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry it is precisely the over reach of the left and the fact that alarmists ignore the signs that entrenched we who doubt.

Posted 88 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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