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
7 hours ago.
by Ohwiseone
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,

Where did I say "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming"?

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

So in the end, there isn't any false claim from those that actually read the study. Out of roughly 3,822 peer reviewed studies on global warming that gave a cause to it, about 3,707 said it was due to man. Only 115 said it was something else or admitted they didn't know.

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

From the study: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Take note that the study itself states they only counted the abstracts that gave a position on Global Warming. And not very shocking, those scientists that gave a position overwhelmingly said man was to be blamed.

To make the pill more bitter, only 3% of scientists that gave an opinion said it wasn't man or wasn't sure...only 3%.

Out of the entirety of the whole study, 64% of the papers gave no opinion at all on the cause. They just show there is global warming and don't say why it's happening.

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

"By your own admission, its 97 percent who agreed with the minority of 32 percent that made that claim."

Actually, now you are making false claims. Again, the original researchers looked at peer reviewed papers. They weeded out any papers that didn't have anything to do with the topic of climate change. This makes sense because why would you want to include studies on topics other than climate change if that is what you are checking on.

From those papers, that is where they got their number. They never hid their info and obviously you never checked their research out and had to rely on an opinion piece from the WSJ instead.

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

"THE FALSE CLAIM was made by YOU and Harry and others on the left."

1. I never made the claim out of context.

2. I am not "on the left".

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

THE FALSE CLAIM was made by YOU and Harry and others on the left. To say 97percent of scientists believe in man made global warming is just false. By your own admission, its 97 percent who agreed with the minority of 32 percent that made that claim. SO YES its a false claim made by those on your side to try and minimize skepticism and promote a consensus that does NOT exist.

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

"This is a false claim.."

Made by whom? Obviously it wasn't made by the people that did the original research.

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

"so how can anyone say 97% of scientists agree?"

As the original study says, they could only use extracts from studies that actually commented on climate change. Obviously they wouldn't have included studies about the gulf stream or whatnot.

That's the thing, the writers of the original research never lied at all about their research. People were just too lazy to take the time to read it. A great deal of the fault lies with reporters.

In the end, the people that did the research did nothing actually wrong.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

This is a false claim and I have proven it time and again

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

By your own admission, only 32% of the data made the claim, so how can anyone say 97% of scientists agree? And of the 32%. How many different authors were involved. So if 97% agree with the minority of 32% that means 97% of scientists agree? Twisted logic for sure

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

Sounds like they need to get their facts straight. One opinion piece says it was climate scientists that they got their info from. Now you are putting up a piece where they said it's alarmists. They can't be both.

This is actually old news anyway if one would go back to the original source for the study using the abstracts. The study itself said they only reviewed abstracts that were written by climateologists and only looked at abstracts that were about global warming.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring '97-Percent Consensus ... ****forbes****/.../global-warming-alar.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% "Consensus" Fraud

NEW AMERICAN

Posted 94 days ago.

Kendall78

And no where in that opinion piece does the author say that man mad climate change is not happening.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' What is the origin of the false belief—constantly repeated—that almost all scientists agree about global warming? WALL STREET JOURNAL.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

No you can still see it in all its glory, its just in a tank of water, so go now, I don't see it being anymore viewable in our lifetimes.

Posted 106 days ago.

mythravere

Yea I knew the Hunley was undergoing preservation efforts. I know the said it would take years to stabilize the materials of the vessel before it could go on permanent display.

So I think I'm going to wait until that happens before I go see it.

Oh well I got plenty of history to dig into around here to keep me occupied.

I'd like to volunteer at the local Museums but my work schedule won't permit it.

Oh well maybe eventually I'll be able to.

Posted 106 days ago.

Tiredofit

It was thought for nearly a.century and a half that the hunley fouled with the Housatonic when she hit her with a spar torpedo, or that the blast rendered the crew unconscious, interesting enough, that was not the case and the clues suggest asphyxiation rather than trauma due to the remains being found right where they were stationed. Had they took on water or something there would have been a mad but useless dash to the hatch.

Posted 106 days ago.

Tiredofit

Speaking of battlefield dead, I remember as a kid wondering why the soldiers were so fat back then, guess I wasn't up to speed on what happens to a dead body laying in the hot sun for days.

Posted 106 days ago.

Tiredofit

Saw the hunley last year in sc. It's at a research facility in the harbor district tours only on weekends due to ongoing preservation efforts. It's worth the visit as they have a very nice interactive visitor center and you can even view the infamous gold coin with the bullet indentation.

Posted 106 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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