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 days 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

mythravere

Why do you have a problem with man being the cause of climate change?

Posted 192 days ago.

mythravere

This argument is becoming muddied up by the wrong details.

Its time to focus on your motivation.

Lets talk about that.

Posted 192 days ago.

mythravere

Those two questions that vex you can be enriched with this little gem.

How much and by what process can planetary warming be attributed to natural phenomenon?

You say its all natural.

Explain why you believe that.

Show us the proof.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

To boil this all down, you dismiss all but 75 climatologist answers to two vague questions in 2009. THat sum it up?

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

You really have to reach to say those two questions represent anything specific.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

What points are there to address, you summarily dismiss all my surveys as NON Science.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

How is a YES to these two questions translate to consensus with the IPPC and all the Global warming nonsense of 2014

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

I addressed all your points, but you haven’t addressed a single one of mine.

Accuse me of running if you like. Perhaps you get paid to argue your side of this debate. I don’t. I have to provide for my family by other means.

If you think leaving off of an online discussion to provide for one’s family constitutes running, so be it. I think most would disagree with you. I sure do.

Adios for now.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

I was speaking of the cook study but I realize I was out of phase with my comments

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

“No they gave their OPINION of the ASBRACTS of papers.”

That’s wrong. Read the study. They surveyed people.

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

The opinions of all have relevance, but not to my comment, which was about climate scientists. Your refusal to understand that testifies to your closed mind.

And the opinions of the experts in the field have the most relevance.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

By the way, 98 percent of the Red Fox in my area agree my chicken coop fence is too high and favor reduction. An additional survey concluded the Raccoon have a similar opinion of the electric wire running around the top with 50k volts. They too claim there is no agenda involved.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

No they gave their OPINION of the ASBRACTS of papers. Have any of the 75 been asked if they felt their papers were represented appropriately like in the Cook study>

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

You claim A 2009 study by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman was published by the American Geophysical Union. The researchers sent questionnaires to 10,257 scientists from a wide range of disciplines. 3146 responded NOW YOU REJECT ANYONE WHO IS NOT A CLIMATE SCIENTIST YET SITE 3146 RESPONSES when REALLY ITS JUST 75 if they are not REAL scientists RIGHT HARRY?

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

How are my comments nasty? They're not meant to be.

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

The studies you cited certainly are meaningful, but not relevant. I wrote of climate scientists. I didn’t write of broadcast meteorologists and petroleum engineers.

Doran and Zimmerman didn’t give their own opinions. They gave the opinions of the climate scientists who responded.

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

75 people have settled science and closed YOUR mind, how sad

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

Run if you will

Posted 192 days ago.

Tiredofit

You are showing your nasty side

Posted 192 days ago.

harryanderson

75 out of 77 is good odds to me.

Posted 192 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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