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 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

Kendall78

You obviously have no concept what it means to carry a burden of proof.

The statement that; The overall temperature of the Earth is rising is agreed by all of us right?

If so, then two positive & generalized claims have been made.

1) Current Global Warming is due in part or fully by the actions of mankind.

2) Current Global Warming is due to natural fluctuations.

Both are positive claims and the burden of proving them rides on those that make them. So you are incorrect, you also have the burden to prove your position.

Posted 251 days ago.

Kendall78

Seven responses and not a answer in there anywhere...just blabber. Well, actually to break it down we have:

3 comments about icebergs in Ohio

1 comment about the medieval warming period with no connection given to the here and now beyond wishful thinking. Ignoring also that the current global temps are higher than the MWP was.

4 accusations of ties with organizations I have no connection to

So in the end we have Tired behaving like other famous denier groups who throw accusations, deny facts and try to connect issues that are not related.

Posted 251 days ago.

Kendall78

And the non-scientific comments begin to flow, thank you for not disappointing Tired.

So what is that now? Over a hundred non-answers to very basic scientific questions. The end result is that you don't have a clue what you are talking about and never did. All you have is faith that you are correct, which is not much to go on at all.

Yes or no, can you show that the rise in overall global temperatures can be attributed to only natural causes?

Posted 251 days ago.

Kendall78

Tired, you say that one cannot reproduce the experiment of man made global warming but how could you know that this warming is due to nature? You can't recreate an experiment to show it's all natural can you?

Posted 251 days ago.

Kendall78

"You cannot debate what you don't understand, Shortbus"

Curious, do you call African-Americans the n-word? Do you call those with mental disabilities the r-word? I ask because that shortbus crack was just as insensitive and closed minded as I have seen on here.

Posted 251 days ago.

Kendall78

"Of course global warming happens"

No one is arguing with that. The debate is whether it is due to mankind or nature. Many people have given evidence that man has had an effect but no one on here has offered up any evidence that current climate change is due only to nature.

Posted 252 days ago.

Kendall78

"The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is human-caused has also declined,"

Tired, you cannot justify truth with popular opinion. Buddhism or Islam is said to be the fastest growing religions while Christianity is declining. Does that mean they are the true way?

Posted 252 days ago.

Kendall78

Sorry Harry....misunderstood your comment at first.

Posted 252 days ago.

Kendall78

"Maybe in your crowd, but not among nearly 2/3 of Americans."

Though who knows where you get your 2/3 from, who ever said they know what they are talking about. After all, 53% of Americans thought Obama was the way to go in the last election. Does the idea that the majority must be correct apply there?

Posted 252 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink, you write,“ Want to be laughed at? Talk about global warming in a crowd.”

Maybe in your crowd, but not among nearly 2/3 of Americans.

A couple of days ago, Tiredofit trumpeted a Mother Jones article titled “Global-Warming Denial Hits a 6-Year High.” According to that article, 63% of Americans think global warming is happening, while only 23% think it isn’t.

Seems one stands a greater chance of being laughed it if he or she insists global warming is “a liberal fairy tale.”

Posted 252 days ago.

Kendall78

Talk about weather when people are talking about climate and you will be laughed at.

And while one cannot prove a negative, there is something he could do. You could do it as well. Scientifically show why the overall global temperature has went up. It's always easy to say "that's not true" but do you have the will to prove what is true?

Posted 252 days ago.

Evidence of future man made global warming effects is non existent.

Want to be laughed at? Talk about global warming in a crowd. Cold conditions hurt people year after year, and they are sick of the scare tactics of excessive warming. A liberal fairy tale for a nanny state.

Posted 252 days ago.

Kendall78

So from what I've seen, Tired still has not offered up any evidence that man made climate change isn't happening, that there is a connection between politics and the science of climate change and still has not answered if he agrees with Richard Lizden or not.

Posted 252 days ago.

harryanderson

As to probabilities and “proof,” or certainty:

To the Christian, there is no certainty in the natural world. God “upholds” the creation. God makes the rules and God changes the rules at will.

God changed the laws of science when he brought plagues upon Egypt and when he brought the flood in Noah’s time. And God isn’t done changing the laws of science. See Revelation. God promises to change everything.

I just finished my lunch. If I drop my plate, I expect it to fall because there’s a high probability God hasn’t suspended the law of gravity for some reason. I expect it to fall, but I can’t be 100% certain.

To borrow a legal phrase, we can only prove things “beyond a reasonable doubt.” To me, the broad agreement among climate scientists proves beyond a reasonable doubt that man’s activities are warming the earth.

Posted 252 days ago.

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 252 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 252 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 253 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 253 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 254 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 254 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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