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
3 hours ago.
by mythravere
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

Ahh harry you are just not that clever, looking at enviromarxists website about "how to talk to a denier". It gives a series of questions and provides talking points. Lol it's just what you are trying to use right down to your tobacco references. Lol. Oh harry.

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

She also didn't say it was u acceptable, so she tacitly endorsed it by doing nothing about it. She freely admired it was to garner funding. The president said unequivocaly climate change is real. So no there is no uncertainty as far as he is concerned. The emails DO show collusion and fraud despite what sham investigation said. So if climatology is exaggerating for what if not money?

Posted 215 days ago.

harryanderson

Here’s an example of unexaggerated, concrete language:

195 out of the 200 climate scientists who have most published peer-reviewed papers and been most cited in other papers believe mankind’s activities have contributed to global warming.

Posted 215 days ago.

Thatsabsurd

PEER REVIEW LOL LOL LOL the only ones they can get to agree are their peers.....anyone else who ever vetted it from the science world called it hogwash from the beginning.

So lets look ate the credentials of their peers............

Accountants without any jobs kills......self-proclaim to be "Climate Scientists) Literature degrees unable to find employment become staff to the "self-proclaimed' climate science world, expounding on their world of 'make-believe"

and then you have the imbecile loyal followers wearing their Tin-foil hats salivating over their every word.........

Some of which you can find on this very forum.

Posted 215 days ago.

harryanderson

“And just how do you propose to do that”

First, let’s stop exaggerating. Let’s look at some of the exaggerations you have made just this morning.

“It's clearly accepted as she said to gain funding.” You exaggerated. She didn’t say it was “accepted.” She said it was done.

“According to you and your president there is no uncertainty.” I’ve already dealt with this falsehood.

“those that are on the gravy train” You exaggerated. Climate scientists aren’t getting rich.

“Emails clearly show deception and secrecy.” You exaggerated, according to multiple independent investigations.

So, as a first step, I propose we stop using sensational exaggerated language such as “accepted,” “ no uncertainty,” “gravy train,” and “clearly.”

So will you agree to stop exaggerating?

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

There is too much money at stake for those involved.

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

The problem with you Harry is you BELIEVE that all this "research" is done with the intent to remove doubt. The fact is, exaggerations are an acceptable ploy to get attention and funding. Emails clearly show deception and secrecy. You will never get those that are on the gravy train to junmp off.

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

And just how do you propose to do that

Posted 215 days ago.

harryanderson

That's not true. I never said there was no uncertainty. I said over 97% of the most expert climate scientists, determined by peer-reviewed publications and citations, agree with the IPCC.

Would you like to change that percentage? It can be done.

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

According to you and your president there is no uncertainty.

Posted 215 days ago.

harryanderson

So how do we reduce the uncertainty?

Posted 215 days ago.

Tiredofit

The acceptance of exaggerating by the NOAA climate program director tells me a lot. It's clearly accepted as she said to gain funding. Peer review. Ha. So you mean all the folks on the money train agree they like the ride?

Posted 215 days ago.

harryanderson

I also agree that the science has been exaggerated in the non-scientific, popular press. But has it been exaggerated in peer-reviewed publications? Are you interested in conducting further research to clear this matter up?

Posted 216 days ago.

harryanderson

“He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated.”

I agree with you, Tiredofit. Climate science has uncertainties, particularly with respect to predictions. Since we agree on this, are you interested in conducting further research to reduce the uncertainty?

Posted 216 days ago.

Tiredofit

And to be clear its not about science NOR politics, ITS A RELIGON

Posted 216 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lying is lying but to the true believer, its ok if its for the greater good. EH fraud?

Posted 216 days ago.

Tiredofit

Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

MONIKA KOPACZ Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences Harvard University

Cambridge, Mass. NOAA CLIMATE PROJECT MANAGER

Posted 216 days ago.

harryanderson

Clarification. The last paragraph should read: That’s why the counter climate change movement doesn’t want to reduce the scientific uncertainty—doubt allows them to advance their political agenda. Like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, doubt is their product.

Posted 216 days ago.

harryanderson

These climate scientists have bravely continued to publish the results of their research in the face of persecution from powerful politicians like Ken Cuccinelli and Lord Monkton.

Tiredofit said “it’s a political agenda, not a scientific discussion.” Climate scientist Michael Mann understands how Tiredofit feels. Mann wrote, “Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers.”

That’s why they don’t want to reduce the scientific uncertainty—doubt allows them to advance their political agenda. Like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, doubt is their product.

Posted 216 days ago.

harryanderson

Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers.

Posted 216 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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