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
14 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

Kendall78

Now obviously a politician that dumb would be voted out if he actually thought that way about "stablization" of a historically high murder rate as something positive.

But why is it that there are people that think a "stabilized" (Marco Rubio), yet historically high, global warming rate is something positive?

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

Paraphrasing something I heard a person say; For twenty years the murder rate of our (blank)city has risen steadily with an increase of 2 more murders per year.

Mr. Politician comes to the podium and explains that going over the paperwork, it is a fact that the murder rate had in fact stabilized in their city.

A reporter asks if that means the rate is going down, Mr. Politician says, "no".

So the rate is still historically high? Mr. Politician says, "yes".

So what are you going to do about the murder rate then? Mr. Politician says, "Why..nothing..why would we, the murder rate has stablizied."

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

Since you bring up Cook; "he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from. There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than ****** donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups."

This is from his own website so it seems he is pretty straight forward with his site's position on science.

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

Skeptical Science was merely for reference. If you believe information posted there or not, let it be because the science is good or bad...not because of the person who put it there.

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

"So you agree that funding can taint information?"

I've never gave a agree or disagree on the topic. Others have but I rather let the science speak for itself.

My mentioning Legates affiliations was strictly for those that think it's more about politics than science.

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

For those that thinks this is more about politics than science...did you know that Dr. Legates is affiliated with NCPA? And did you know that NCPA is funded by Exxon?

Now one who believes this is all about money and politics should find Legates opinions to highly skeptical.

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

Sounds like Dr. David Legates disagrees in how the original researches counted up the abstracts.

So I guess the question is this, what makes David Legates's count better than the people that did the original research....other than that you like what he said.

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

For reference: w w w.skepticalscience.c om/97-percent-consensus-discredited.h tm

Posted 145 days ago.

Kendall78

"Ok which study are you basing your claim on?"

The one that the WSJ is talking about. Haven't you looked at it before now?

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

Later. It's time to go support the benefactors of government largesse.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

Whom do you consider most authoritative on the subject, Tiredofit? Whose opinions matter to you?

Cards on the table.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

I have never claimed that "only climate scientists (sic) opinions matter."

But I do consider climate scientists, and especially the most expert, most published and most reviewed climate scientists, to be most credible on the subject.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

But your statement is not factual, since you left out the key qualifying word "climate."

So, Tiredofit, you still haven't shown where I said "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming."

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

So, to be clear. I have retracted the "all climate scientists" statement. I stand by my "most expert climate scientists" statement until someone proves it wrong.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

You mislead in two ways, Tiredofit, in going so far back.

First, I later amended my statements to say "most expert" or "most published." I realized that I couldn't prove "all climate scientists."

Second, your recent post claims I said "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming." Odd that you were quick to focus on the word "all," and omitted the word "climate."

So even though I later amended my statement, you still mislead. I was clearly referring to "climate scientists," not "scientists."

Tsk. Tsk.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Where did I say "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming"?

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

So in the end, there isn't any false claim from those that actually read the study. Out of roughly 3,822 peer reviewed studies on global warming that gave a cause to it, about 3,707 said it was due to man. Only 115 said it was something else or admitted they didn't know.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

From the study: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Take note that the study itself states they only counted the abstracts that gave a position on Global Warming. And not very shocking, those scientists that gave a position overwhelmingly said man was to be blamed.

To make the pill more bitter, only 3% of scientists that gave an opinion said it wasn't man or wasn't sure...only 3%.

Out of the entirety of the whole study, 64% of the papers gave no opinion at all on the cause. They just show there is global warming and don't say why it's happening.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"By your own admission, its 97 percent who agreed with the minority of 32 percent that made that claim."

Actually, now you are making false claims. Again, the original researchers looked at peer reviewed papers. They weeded out any papers that didn't have anything to do with the topic of climate change. This makes sense because why would you want to include studies on topics other than climate change if that is what you are checking on.

From those papers, that is where they got their number. They never hid their info and obviously you never checked their research out and had to rely on an opinion piece from the WSJ instead.

Posted 146 days ago.

Kendall78

"THE FALSE CLAIM was made by YOU and Harry and others on the left."

1. I never made the claim out of context.

2. I am not "on the left".

Posted 146 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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