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
99 days ago.
by slinky
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

Reducing our carbon emissions is the responsible, free, and conservative course.

I'm not among those who whine, "My little bit doesn't count." Free men and women do what they can without complaint.

Posted 336 days ago.

harryanderson

I called for individual responsibility, not political action.

When we wait for politicians to act on known threats, we cede power to the government. When we take personal responsibility, we keep our freedoms.

Posted 336 days ago.

harryanderson

Perhaps some of those who invited Benjamin Netanyahu to address Congress don’t realize he supports the scientific consensus. At the Copenhagen Summit, Israel agreed to reduce CO2 emissions 20% by 2020. Netanyahu said:

“…the threat of climate change is no less menacing than the security threats that we face. I intend to act determinedly in this field. In a country that suffers from a severe water shortage, this is an existential struggle.”

htt p://w ww.jpost.co m/Enviro-Tech/Cabinet-okays-NIS-22b-to-reduce-greenhouse-gases

The US military has also labeled global warming a security threat. Those who seek to lessen the security threat to Israel and America will lower their carbon emissions.

Let us take personal responsibility and “act determinedly in this field.”

It’s a matter of patriotism.

Posted 336 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, the truth that upsets them the most is the overwhelming scientific consensus. It really galls them that, according to figures quoted by stillhere, only one paper out of every 143 agreed with them.

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

97% of the most-published and most-reviewed climate scientists have reached a consensus.

These scientists have made their work known and subjected it to scrutiny.

Will you follow their example and subject your work to scrutiny? What are you afraid of?

Frauds refuse to disclose their sources. Are you a fraud?

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

Do we get to check the credibility of your source, or does it come from an anonymous internet poster with a history of misrepresenting the work of climate scientists?

I'm trying to figure out whether your information is credible. Who paid for it?

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

From where did you copy that post, stillhere?

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere, you posted:

"Out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That’s less than one percent, not 97 percent. Moreover, as we reported, the Cook study was flawed from the beginning, using selection parameters designed to weight the outcome in favor of the alarmist position."

I'd like to check the credibility of your source. From where did you copy this?

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

Do you know who paid for your counter climate change bible? Who filled the collection plate? Who paid for the words you posted?

Do we mere mortals get to read the words your counter climate change gods have written? Or is that only for you true believers?

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

From where did you copy and paste that "Out of 12,000 scientific papers..." quote of a few minutes ago?

Care to let us know where your "bible" is? After all, only 1 of 143 climate change papers subscribed to your religion, according to your own words.

Posted 337 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, according to figures cited by stillhere himself, only 0.7% of peer-reviewed papers "see" things the way he does.

Posted 337 days ago.

Kendall78

Well, stillhere's nonevidence isn't very convincing.

Posted 338 days ago.

harryanderson

Let's be honest, stillhere. It's unhelpful to factor in the opinions of those who don't give an opinion, and that's what I did when I repeated your 0.7% figure. It's more helpful to say that 3% of the papers opining reject the AGW position and 97% of those giving an opinion accept it.

When you included the opinions of those who gave none, it made your tiny minority look even tinier. It plummeted from less than 3% to less that 3/4 of one percent.

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

Now you're even denying your own words.

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

And owiseone was right. 97% of those who opined agreed with the consensus position.

And less than 3% of those who opined rejected the consensus position.

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

Maybe you didn't understand how I turned 0.7% into 1 in every 143.

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

Mischaracterized your words? I used your exact words, which were "0.7 % rejected AGW."

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

Gotta go now. Adios. Sleep well.

Posted 339 days ago.

harryanderson

According to your reckoning, 99.3% "doesn't" agree with you.

Posted 339 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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