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 Kendall78
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

Stillhere

But if you would like to post a link that is not a leftist one on that quote I will look at it.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

I don't know who Joe Bast is nor do I care, he doesn't speak for me any more than ALGORE speaks for you.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

You walked into that one HARRY ;)

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Thanks for agreeing with my post, now explain if 66.4% stated NO POSITION, how 97% could support AGW???

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW,

More fraud on your part, if you believe the .07% you must believe the 66.4 figure as well

Posted 168 days ago.

harryanderson

Precisely, Stillhere,

Like you said yourself, only "0.7 per cent rejected AGW." That's why the scientific debate frustrates Joe Bast.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

More on Harrys 97% lie

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Greek, you have to understand that Harry and his ilk have no interest in debate, its a left wing agenda.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets take a look at what Monika Kopacz the head of the NOAA climate project has to say

It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). 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 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Stunning that the other few political scientists on the Govt dole agree< I AM SHOCKED

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

AHHH another talking point PEER REVIEWED, so the other crooks agree?? how nice

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Harry you claim childish insult, but its YOU That calls others ANTI SCIENCE DENIERS> The FACTS are, the science is political, and its INACCURATE to boot. I know this is your pet topic but your push for a progressive Govt is obvious

Posted 168 days ago.

harryanderson

The New American isn't peer-reviewed. The study I cited is, which makes it much more credible in scientific circles.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Yes, we’ve only been marinating 24/7 for two decades in increasingly hysterical media predictions and pronouncements about the coming AGW apocalypse — and the American public still hasn’t bought the false “consensus.” However, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) now engaged in another conference in Bonn, Germany, and the UN’s IPCC set to release a new series of reports, we can expect that the Cooked-up consensus results will be cited endlessly. Or, as Cook himself put it: “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly.”

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

In a May 22 follow-up article ("Climate 'Consensus' Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report") The New American reported on additional problems with the Cook study and cited a large and growing list of eminent climate scientists — including Nobel Prize recipients and scientists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — who challenge the claim that there is any “scientific consensus” on climate change, or that “the science is settled” in favor of the Al Gore alarmist position.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets take a look at COOKS own words I anticipate there will be around 6000 "neutral" papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like "hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes."

Posted 168 days ago.

harryanderson

Fact Number 1. In a survey published by the National Academy of Sciences, 97.4% (75 of 77) of respondents “who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. . . think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Fact Number 2. Your childish insults upset neither the survey nor me.

Have a nice rest of the weekend. I will.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

A common fraud that's what you are.

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Tell me why there is not mile thick ice sheets still sitting on the mov? It ain't my truck! Tell me what the alarmists have been right about? Oh they need more money to get accurate models LOLOL sure

Posted 168 days ago.

Stillhere

Harry for you to be blind to the politics of this issue tells me you are being dishonest yet again, once again you show your hard left bias. republican yeah right

Posted 168 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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