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 hours ago.
by moderation
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

harryanderson

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

Posted 149 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Cards on the table.

Posted 149 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 149 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 149 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 149 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 149 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

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

Posted 150 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 150 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 150 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 150 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 150 days ago.

Kendall78

"This is a false claim.."

Made by whom? Obviously it wasn't made by the people that did the original research.

Posted 150 days ago.

Kendall78

"so how can anyone say 97% of scientists agree?"

As the original study says, they could only use extracts from studies that actually commented on climate change. Obviously they wouldn't have included studies about the gulf stream or whatnot.

That's the thing, the writers of the original research never lied at all about their research. People were just too lazy to take the time to read it. A great deal of the fault lies with reporters.

In the end, the people that did the research did nothing actually wrong.

Posted 150 days ago.

Kendall78

Sounds like they need to get their facts straight. One opinion piece says it was climate scientists that they got their info from. Now you are putting up a piece where they said it's alarmists. They can't be both.

This is actually old news anyway if one would go back to the original source for the study using the abstracts. The study itself said they only reviewed abstracts that were written by climateologists and only looked at abstracts that were about global warming.

Posted 150 days ago.

Kendall78

And no where in that opinion piece does the author say that man mad climate change is not happening.

Posted 150 days ago.

mythravere

Yea I knew the Hunley was undergoing preservation efforts. I know the said it would take years to stabilize the materials of the vessel before it could go on permanent display.

So I think I'm going to wait until that happens before I go see it.

Oh well I got plenty of history to dig into around here to keep me occupied.

I'd like to volunteer at the local Museums but my work schedule won't permit it.

Oh well maybe eventually I'll be able to.

Posted 162 days ago.

mythravere

Yea the pictures from that war are chilling. I remember as a kid going to the library and checking out the whole series of Time Life books chronicling the Civil War.

Those images stick with you.

Speaking of the Hunley thats one I want to see also.

The went up to Fort Boreman and checked out the Replica. Neat as heck. To think those men crammed themselves into that thing.

Posted 162 days ago.

mythravere

I honestly don't think there is a better or really more concise book on that subject matter out there.

If there is I haven't run across it.

The Civil War is something that interests me too. Especially the advancement of weaponry during that time period.

Someday I really want to tour the battlefields. Probably start with Gettysburg.

But the one place that I absolutely plan on seeing is the Monitor Museum.

Posted 163 days ago.

mythravere

Hey Tiredofit if you haven't read it. I highly suggest getting a copy of Hardtack and Coffee. Its without a doubt one of the most interesting Civil War books I have ever read. You might enjoy it.

Posted 163 days ago.

mythravere

Oh I polish stuff just not knobs. I polish/clean and use vintage shaving instruments. Everything except straight razors that is.

Too expensive of an outlay to join that club.

Posted 164 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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