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
11 minutes ago.
by Tiredofit
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

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 226 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 226 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 226 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 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

Run if you will

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

You are showing your nasty side

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

75 out of 77 is good odds to me.

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

And I find it amusing that you think a 2009 study is outdated, then cite a 2008 study yourself.

Now it’s up to you. Answer my counters to your weak rebuttals if you can.

Nevertheless, you probably won’t hear any more from me until tomorrow evening. Bedtime approaches. I have to earn a living, and I don’t always have time to talk to those who’ve closed their minds.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO all of the studies I have brought up mean nothing to you but an associate professor and grad student do.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you deny that Dorans work was based on about 75 persons that were climate scientists

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

Are Doran or Zimmerman climate scientists?

Posted 226 days ago.

harryanderson

I can answer each issue you raise.

1. Warming hasn’t stopped, but that’s another issue, and not relevant to my comment.

2. Sure, only about 30% of those asked responded. To say that sample is unrepresentative, one would have to prove that climate scientists who accept the consensus are less motivated than those who don’t. Can you prove that?

3. Did you read the study? The researchers purposely pared it to two specific questions in order to encourage participation.

4. Did someone with a “political agenda” write the Forbes article?

5. Broadcast meteorologists aren’t climate scientists.

6. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta aren’t climate scientists, either. We’ve been through this before. They’re mostly engineers and geologists employed by Alberta’s large fossil fuel industry.

Your error-laden rebuttal fails to crack the wall of consensus among climate scientists.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

If you want to bring up John Cooks work please do, I would love to shine a light on that one. He is the one I believe your president was quoting.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

Yep it sounds like a reputable study> I guess the studies I posted are just Denier BS.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

Posted 226 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?

Posted 226 days ago.

Tiredofit

from FORBES

Posted 226 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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