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
25 minutes ago.
by Kunectdots
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

Ohwiseone

What a complete waste of effort ! The brain washing is complete with this one ! I bet your ancestors were standing around outside of Noahs ark saying to each other , so its raining , the research was funded so therefore flawed, it surely wont flood the earth ! !

Posted 144 days ago.

Ohwiseone

You still haven't answered some very simple questions . Where does Faux get their "research" ?????? Who funds that ????? Who's agenda are they following ????? And most of all Who's agenda are you following ?Pretty easy so why do you delay ?

Posted 144 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Tiredbrain sure likes hearing itself talk even when its wrong ! There have been numerous sites posted for your perusal that are reputable that say that yes we have a problem and yes its most likely man has a hand In it !Now if you choose to nitpick and deny the problem that's your affair b! But like I said sticking ones head up ones rump isn't going to solve anything ! Yeah , please don't duck !

Posted 144 days ago.

Kendall78

"you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale."

Good point Harry.

Why are you more dependable on this topic than the experts Tired?

Posted 144 days ago.

Kendall78

"provide proof"

So..since a person doesn't provide proof to your standards (whatever those are), then you have concluded there is no proof? Wow...what an ego.

Posted 144 days ago.

Kendall78

"I knew you'd reject the 43 papers without looking at them."

It shouldn't surprise anyone that he did. No real point in referencing them to him anyway, he wouldn't begin to understand them.

Posted 144 days ago.

Kendall78

"is that not open to anyone to author???"

Go down to the bottom of the pages and you'll see something unfamiliar to you...citations. You could learn a lot there Tired.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

But why argue with me about the accuracy of Mann's hockey stick? Take it up with him and the many other scientists I've cited.

Basically, you're asking me to believe you instead of the experts. No sale.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

Well. You yourself said the hockey stick was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not using the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

"A fallacy in which a rhetor seeks to persuade an audience not by giving evidence but by appealing to the respect people have for the famous."

grammar.about.c om/od/ab/g/appealauthterm.htm

The key word here is "famous." I'm citing them for their EXPERTISE, not their fame.

But I apply a standard beyond that. The source should not be cited if it's considered immune from criticism. That's why I cite peer-reviewed stuff; it's been criticized by other experts.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

"I want to see proof that CO2 is causing the earth to warm"

Like I said, look in the scientific literature.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

Look in the papers for the proof. Take it up with the scientists. I've moved on.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

I believe the experts over an anonymous internet poster.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

Take it up with Mann. I've moved on.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

"OK but has it been proven by scientific methods?"

Read the 43 papers and take it up with their authors, if you like.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

I meant that you cited strong evidence the hockey stick graph was ACCURATE, since it is "supported by more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records," as you said.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

You ask if the hockey stick graph is inaccurate, but you already cited strong evidence that it is.

As you quoted, the hockey stick graph "was supported by more than two dozen reconstructions, using various statistical methods and combinations of proxy records."

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

Since 2/3 of my fellow Republicans and Republican-leaning independents agree it's beneficial to reduce our fossil fuel use, I've moved on to figuring out how best to do that.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

I knew you'd reject the 43 papers without looking at them.

Posted 144 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm on to solutions.

Posted 144 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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