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
9 minutes ago.
by Ithink
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

mythravere

Like I said when you own house(party) is clean then you can point fingers.

Posted 206 days ago.

mythravere

"Also among the corrupt are the government officials handing out the grants to friends and buddies."

You mean like O'l Shotgun Cheney giving out no bid contracts that in a lot of cases weren't even fulfilled to Halliburton? A company he had vested interests with.

Posted 206 days ago.

mythravere

" But we have already discussed scientists who faked stats to keep the grants rolling in ."

Oh we have? Good then name them off.

Posted 206 days ago.

I was talking about the whole global warming cult. I did not say just scientists. But we have already discussed scientists who faked stats to keep the grants rolling in .Also in the money greedy bunch are Al Gore, Michael Moore, Solyndra,etc.,and all the grant receivers who have no positive results. Also among the corrupt are the government officials handing out the grants to friends and buddies. Starting with obama.

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

"Who would want to join a group of money snatching liars?"

You do realize that it has not been established to any certain degree that climate scientists are money snatching liars.

If you think so then provide the info that convinces you of that truth.

Posted 207 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

LOL they are scrambling they are scrambling......cut off funding for the imbeciles and they have to go back to the only profession they can do part way correct ..............Goldfish babysitting

Posted 207 days ago.

Just more proven examples of the warmists' addiction to exaggeration and hoax tactics. Who would want to join a group of money snatching liars?

Let's go get a sun tan. WHERE? ?????

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

Harry that would be all good and well if we were arguing over facts alone. But we aren't. Most of what is brought to the table by the likes of folks like tiredofit is swayed by a political agenda.

Of course they then accuse our support of what the scientists are saying as a political agenda. Refusing to see it any other way. But I feel that they NEED it to be that way.

Its all about taking back THEIR country you know.

Posted 207 days ago.

harryanderson

Meteorologists aren't climate scientists anyway. 97.5% of the 200 most-published and most-cited climate researchers agree with "the tenets of the IPCC."

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

Read the survey. The actual one. Not the sensationalized forbes article.

Consensus was most definitely not destroyed.

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

375 people were sent the follow up questions listed in the forbes article. Of those 271 responded.

52% of respondents answered that humans were mostly the cause. The other 48 percent were spread out over other questions. Who's percentages of agreement with are not listed.

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

"First, even though the response rate to our survey was well within the normative range, nearly three quarters of the AMS members invited to participate did not do so. This raises the possibility that our respondents may not accurately represent the views of the broader AMS membership. It is plausible, for example, that AMS members skeptical of global warming may have been less likely than the average member to respond, potentially by virtue of feeling marginalized within their professional society as a result of the views on the issue. Conversely, it is also plausible that skeptical members may have been more likely than the average member to respond, due to a desire to use the opportunity to have their views recognized by AMS leadership and other members."

Posted 207 days ago.

mythravere

Yea it destroys the consensus. LOL!

OK lets look at this.

Out of 7062 AMS members invited to participate 1854 members completed at least some form portion of the survey beyond the consent form.

Posted 207 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/jamestaylor/2013/11/20/the-latest-meteorologist-survey-destroys-the-global-warming-climate-consensus/

"Barely half of American Meteorological Society meteorologists believe global warming is occurring "

Posted 208 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/24/michael-manns-global-warming-argument-fuels-denier-skepticism/

" a recent survey of American Meteorological Society (AMS) atmospheric scientists found only 38 percent of AMS scientists believe future warming will be very harmful, and an even smaller 30 percent are very worried about global warming. This is a far cry from Mann’s unsupported assertion that “97 percent agree … we must respond to the dangers of a warming planet.”

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

So, Tiredofit,

Are you interested in reducing the scientific uncertainty, or do you choose to continue making doubt your product?

Posted 208 days ago.

harryanderson

Of the 200 “strongest and most credentialed (climate) researchers, a whopping 97.5% “fully agree…anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.”

You have not shown where any grantors gave grants on the condition that the recipients of those grants prove a connection between global climate change and greenhouse gases. No instances=no basis for your claim.

As for the mild term denier, you have complained about it repeatedly. After the first complaint, I said I would no longer use it. I hoped foreswearing the term would allow your fragile self-esteem to heal. Apparently not.

Posted 208 days ago.

Tiredofit

Seems like a reasonable question

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

So was, "HOw can you trust the information if you know it may exaggerated to get attention and funding", tongue in cheek or did you mean it?

Posted 208 days ago.

Kendall78

Youth, like truth..is in the eye of the beholder. You should know this, your eyes see a new truth everyday. Just a pity they rarely see any facts.

Posted 208 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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