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
5 hours 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

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 222 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 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Of course global warming happens or there would be ice bergs across Ohio, DUH

Posted 222 days ago.

Kendall78

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

Posted 222 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 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

Once again harry wades in with half truths. FROM THE SAME ARTICLE The percentage of Americans who believe global warming is human-caused has also declined, and now stands at 47 percent, a decrease of 7 percent since 2012.

At the same time, the survey also shows an apparent hardening of attitudes. Back in September 2012, only 43 percent of those who believed that global warming isn't happening said they were either "very sure" or "extremely sure" about their views. By November of last year, that number had increased to 56 percent.

Posted 222 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 222 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 222 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 222 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 222 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 222 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 222 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 222 days ago.

Tiredofit

As for myself, I refuse to be swayed by paralyzing fear, hype, cultural disdain, and unproven political conspiracy theories.

I COULD NOT AGREE MORE

Posted 223 days ago.

Tiredofit

Renowned climate scientist Dr Tim Ball sums up the stunning gravitas of the leaks with regards to the process of peer-reviewing and the publication of papers on climate change in journals.

“What you’ve got here is confirmation of the small group of scientists who, by the way, Professor Wegman who was asked to arbitrate in the debate about the hockey stick, he identified 42 people who were publishing together and also peer-reviewing each other’s literature.” Dr Ball explains.

Posted 223 days ago.

Tiredofit

In one of the emails, Phil Jones, the director of the East Anglia climate center, suggested to climate scientist Michael Mann of Penn State University We “will keep them out somehow — even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

Posted 223 days ago.

Tiredofit

We have been through this time and again, peer reviewed does not mean TRUTHFUL or ACCURATE it just means your buddies agree.

Posted 223 days ago.

Tiredofit

I will remind you that number represents 75 people, and I guess your answer is NO they have not proven it they just theorize that it is likely. BIG DIFFERNECE

Posted 223 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 223 days ago.

Tiredofit

You don't think there is any economic implication for those who are paid by Grants>? If the "crisis" went away, would the funding follow?

Posted 223 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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