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
3 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

I addressed all your points, but you haven’t addressed a single one of mine.

Accuse me of running if you like. Perhaps you get paid to argue your side of this debate. I don’t. I have to provide for my family by other means.

If you think leaving off of an online discussion to provide for one’s family constitutes running, so be it. I think most would disagree with you. I sure do.

Adios for now.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

I was speaking of the cook study but I realize I was out of phase with my comments

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

“No they gave their OPINION of the ASBRACTS of papers.”

That’s wrong. Read the study. They surveyed people.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

The opinions of all have relevance, but not to my comment, which was about climate scientists. Your refusal to understand that testifies to your closed mind.

And the opinions of the experts in the field have the most relevance.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

By the way, 98 percent of the Red Fox in my area agree my chicken coop fence is too high and favor reduction. An additional survey concluded the Raccoon have a similar opinion of the electric wire running around the top with 50k volts. They too claim there is no agenda involved.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

No they gave their OPINION of the ASBRACTS of papers. Have any of the 75 been asked if they felt their papers were represented appropriately like in the Cook study>

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

You claim A 2009 study by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman was published by the American Geophysical Union. The researchers sent questionnaires to 10,257 scientists from a wide range of disciplines. 3146 responded NOW YOU REJECT ANYONE WHO IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST YET SITE 3146 RESPONSES when REALLY ITS JUST 75 if they are not REAL scientists RIGHT HARRY?

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

How are my comments nasty? They're not meant to be.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

The studies you cited certainly are meaningful, but not relevant. I wrote of climate scientists. I didn’t write of broadcast meteorologists and petroleum engineers.

Doran and Zimmerman didn’t give their own opinions. They gave the opinions of the climate scientists who responded.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

75 people have settled science and closed YOUR mind, how sad

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

Run if you will

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

You are showing your nasty side

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

75 out of 77 is good odds to me.

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

And I find it amusing that you think a 2009 study is outdated, then cite a 2008 study yourself.

Now it’s up to you. Answer my counters to your weak rebuttals if you can.

Nevertheless, you probably won’t hear any more from me until tomorrow evening. Bedtime approaches. I have to earn a living, and I don’t always have time to talk to those who’ve closed their minds.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO all of the studies I have brought up mean nothing to you but an associate professor and grad student do.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you deny that Dorans work was based on about 75 persons that were climate scientists

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

Are Doran or Zimmerman climate scientists?

Posted 94 days ago.

harryanderson

I can answer each issue you raise.

1. Warming hasn’t stopped, but that’s another issue, and not relevant to my comment.

2. Sure, only about 30% of those asked responded. To say that sample is unrepresentative, one would have to prove that climate scientists who accept the consensus are less motivated than those who don’t. Can you prove that?

3. Did you read the study? The researchers purposely pared it to two specific questions in order to encourage participation.

4. Did someone with a “political agenda” write the Forbes article?

5. Broadcast meteorologists aren’t climate scientists.

6. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta aren’t climate scientists, either. We’ve been through this before. They’re mostly engineers and geologists employed by Alberta’s large fossil fuel industry.

Your error-laden rebuttal fails to crack the wall of consensus among climate scientists.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

If you want to bring up John Cooks work please do, I would love to shine a light on that one. He is the one I believe your president was quoting.

Posted 94 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yep it sounds like a reputable study> I guess the studies I posted are just Denier BS.

Posted 94 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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