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
30 minutes 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

Tiredofit

Your beliefs are just that, BELIEFS. Harry you claim a belief in GOD, something that Kendall mocks and Myth rejects out of hand. Funny I don't see you guys arguing about something as important as your everlastins soul and the struggle of good and evil. You seem to worry more about CO2 lol don't get that.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

That's fine, you can believe anything you want to, but when you try to expand that belief into letting Govt levy tax and take control of the private sector, I do have a problem with that.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

You state time and again WHAT or WHO you believe, but that is a long way from scientific proof. Its faith

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO to sum it up. With all the money spent and all the "research" completed, you guys cannot point to a single provable fact that shows Man is causing a change in the climate.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Please correct the record where appropriate with facts

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

As a piece of science and statistics it was seriously flawed as two data series representing such different variables as temperature and tree rings simply cannot be credibly grafted together into a single series.

In every other science when such a drastic revision of previously accepted knowledge is promulgated, there is considerable debate and initial scepticism, the new theory facing a gauntlet of criticism and intense review. Only if a new idea survives that process does it become broadly accepted by the scientific peer group and the public at large.

This never happened with Mann's `Hockey Stick'. The coup was total, bloodless, and swift as Mann's paper was greeted with a chorus of uncritical approval from the greenhouse industry. Within the space of only 12 months, the theory had become entrenched as a new orthodoxy.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Why is it that the proxies are not a subject of conversation or debate, shall we just accept them as fact>

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

If I missed some PROOF do correct me, otherwise you have proven NOTHING

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Appeal to authority lol ok but that's NOT PROOF

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

So I guess we are still at the NO PROOF level. You cite works of others that are in fact OPINION.

Posted 14 days ago.

Kendall78

"you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale."

Good point Harry.

Why are you more dependable on this topic than the experts Tired?

Posted 14 days ago.

Kendall78

"provide proof"

So..since a person doesn't provide proof to your standards (whatever those are), then you have concluded there is no proof? Wow...what an ego.

Posted 14 days ago.

Kendall78

"I knew you'd reject the 43 papers without looking at them."

It shouldn't surprise anyone that he did. No real point in referencing them to him anyway, he wouldn't begin to understand them.

Posted 14 days ago.

Kendall78

"is that not open to anyone to author???"

Go down to the bottom of the pages and you'll see something unfamiliar to you...citations. You could learn a lot there Tired.

Posted 14 days ago.

harryanderson

But why argue with me about the accuracy of Mann's hockey stick? Take it up with him and the many other scientists I've cited.

Basically, you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale.

Posted 14 days ago.

harryanderson

Well. You yourself said the hockey stick was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions.

Posted 14 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not using the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

"A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous."

grammar.about.c om/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

The key word here is "famous." I'm citing them for their EXPERTISE, not their fame.

But I apply a standard beyond that. The source should not be cited if it's considered immune from criticism. That's why I cite peer-reviewed stuff; it's been criticized by other experts.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Is anything I posted inaccurate

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Mann completed the coup and crudely grafted the surface temperature record of the 20th century (shown in red and itself largely the product of urban heat islands) onto the pre-1900 tree ring record. The effect was visually dramatic as the 20th century was portrayed as a climate rocketing out of control. The red line extends all the way to 1998 (Mann's `warmest year of the millennium'), a year warmed by the big El Niño of that year. It should be noted that the surface record is completely at variance with the satellite temperature record [20]. Had the latter been used to represent the last 20 years, the effect would have been to make the 20th century much less significant when compared with earlier centuries.

Posted 14 days ago.

Tiredofit

Mann has been shown to be completely wrong has he not

Posted 14 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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