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 days ago.
by Ohwiseone
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

"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 148 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 148 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 148 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 148 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 148 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 148 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 148 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 148 days ago.

harryanderson

I believe the experts over an anonymous internet poster.

Posted 148 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 148 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 148 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 148 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 148 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 148 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 148 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm on to solutions.

Posted 148 days ago.

harryanderson

"If the rate of warming is unprecedented as you state, that would be some level of proof that something is different about this warming trend, Please show where this data is"

Here's a list of 43 scientific papers showing the recent warming is unprecedented in the last 2000 years.

en.wikipedia****/wiki/List_of_large-scale_temperature_reconstructions_of_the_last_2,000_years

I know you won't bother to look at this scientific data, since you've said it's not a scientific debate.

Posted 148 days ago.

Kendall78

"how was this data gathered from 12000 years ago"

It must have came from the same place that told you what didn't happen back then..haha.

Posted 148 days ago.

Kendall78

"TELL ME WHERE"

You mean after all these years...after all the times people have shown you...you have no idea where to look up the info or how?

Are you that stupid? I mean really..are you that mentally deficient?

Posted 148 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- you know Tired won't accept that. It doesn't fall into his view of the world.

He'll probably say it's all political and the govt is making NASA say those things.

Of course ignoring the times that he used NASA for his own arguments.

He won't give an alternative explanation for why the temps are going up, he'll simple say what he believes is not causing it and smile stupidly like he accomplished something.

Posted 148 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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