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
6 hours ago.
by Stillhere
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

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

You can try to mischaracterize my position all you want, but the FACT IS 97% of 32% in not and never will be consensus, PERIOD

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position.

You don't really have 32% if the truth were known, that's why you keep repeating the lie, you hope it will stick

Posted 55 days ago.

harryanderson

Gotta go now. Adios. Sleep well.

Posted 55 days ago.

harryanderson

According to your reckoning, 99.3% "doesn't" agree with you.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

Only in a dishonest persons mind does 97% of 32% equal a consensus, but you show who you are, but I always knew.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

So if you wish to continue with your 97% lie, well that's on your conscience not mine. Well let the facts speak for themselves. Even in an agenda driven non scientific survey you only could muster 32% agreement. Ill take the 67% who don't buy your BS thanks

Posted 55 days ago.

harryanderson

I only repeated what you wrote. You wrote that only 0.7% rejected AGW.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

But its clear that even those numbers are erroneous, Cook demonstrates a preconceived result and agenda and has misclassified many papers to suit his needs.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

But its clear that even those numbers are erroneous, Cook demonstrates a preconceived result and agenda and has misclassified many papers to suit his needs.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

32% agree with you Harry, that's 67% that doesnt

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

Cook went on to sketch out an entire promotional campaign utilizing press releases, major media programs, booklets, Kindle/iBooks, blogs, etc. “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly and make SkS the home of the perceived strengthening consensus,” Cook advised.

Posted 55 days ago.

harryanderson

According to your post, onlt 1 in 143 papers agrees with your extremist view. Again, the figures you cited.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

In 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 55 days ago.

Stillhere

Its important to know the source of ones facts so John Cooks activism is relevant, his methodology is also a source of great concern. I will expose these things like or lump it, matters little to me

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

97% of 32% is not consensus nor even a majority stop lying Harry, you don't like details do you? You want dishonest headlines that you can come in here an tout. Much like your giant lie about 2014 when confronted with fact you whine like a schoolgirl and run off.. We will look at the FACTS not your left wing talking points, whine as you will

Posted 55 days ago.

harryanderson

When you found out the Cook study shows how extreme your position is, you start attacking its credibility instead of changing your mind.

You are the one who cited it, not me. I only referred to the statistics you cited. and those figures show that your position is shared by only one paper out of every 143.

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

OUCH

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

DAILY CALLER

Posted 55 days ago.

Stillhere

Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

Posted 55 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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