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
158 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

The consensus is robust. Like stillhere wrote, of 12,000 papers reviewed, only 1 out of every 143 rejected it. Clearly, the climate scientists who reject it are a tiny band of extremists.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

you said so yourself. you have taken yourself to the woodshed.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

I wrote that wrong. Only one 1 in 143 reject the consensus position.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

As you said, 0.7% of those studied, or 1 out of every 143, did not reject global warming. Period.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

As usual, when stifled in debate, you resort to the childish insults. In doing so, you show who you are.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

Let me make this as clear as possible. When evaluating opinions, we don't count the opinions of those who don't express an opinion. Got it? 97% of the papers that expressed an opinion endorsed AGW. That's what owiseone said. He told the truth.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

Your post shows the vast difference between the climate scientists who study the issue and the gullible people who have been flim-flammed by the propaganda campaign referenced at the beginning of this thread.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

Your statement is factual. Only one out of every 143 papers on global warming reject it.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

You have unwittingly shown how extreme the "reject AGW" scientists are.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

So those who "reject AGW" are a small number of outliers whose views disagree with the consensus.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

According to your own figures and your own reasoning, only one paper of every 143 agrees with you.

Posted 539 days ago.

harryanderson

Owiseone's post is accurate. 97% of those who took a position agreed.

So is yours. You say that only "32.6% endorsed it. And the way you also say, "0.7% rejected AGW."

Seven-tenths of a percent is 1/143. So you've provided further evidence of the consensus by stating that only one paper of 143 agrees with your position by "rejecting AGW."

And therein lies the rub. Scientists who study the issue overwhelmingly disagree with the deniers, even as the deniers have managed to hoodwink many who lack the expertise to make a judgment.

Posted 539 days ago.

Kunectdots

And That’s the Way It Was: In 1972, Cronkite Warned of ‘New Ice Age’

h ttp://newsbusters.o rg/blogs/julia-seymour/2015/03/05/and-thats-way-it-was-1972-cronkite-warned-new-ice-age#sthash.1glAI5LV.dpuf

Posted 544 days ago.

harryanderson

Thankfully, the war against the work of climate scientists hasn’t stopped Americans from seeking non-carbon energy sources.

At the Ivanpah Solar Power Facility in California, a field of heliostat mirrors reflect sunlight to 3 towers, heating water and generating 392 megawatts of power, enough for 160,000 homes.

And here’s another, with a neat tweak: The Crescent Dunes Solar Energy Project in NV also uses a field of mirrors, but it heats molten salt instead of water. The heated salt is stored and generates power when there is no sun. So Crescent Dunes adds storage.

Many Americans are seeking solutions to global warming. They’re helping our economy stay sound and protecting our national security. This is what we need to do.

Posted 546 days ago.

Kunectdots

HAARP?

Posted 547 days ago.

harryanderson

Anti-climate change propaganda has shifted public opinion, even as it’s failed to dent the scientific consensus.

That success was bound to change, since the laws of physics aren’t subject to public opinion. Now, the public’s view may be aligning closer with that of climate scientists. Earlier, I cited a recent Yale poll in which 56% of Republicans supported “regulating CO2 as a pollutant.”

A recent NYT/Stanford/Resources for the Future survey asked Republicans, “If nothing is done to reduce global warming in the future, how serious of a problem do you think it will be for the United States?”

21% said very serious

33% said somewhat serious

23% said not very

only 22% said not serious

htt p://w ww.nytimes.co m/interactive/2015/01/29/us/global-warming-poll.html?_r=0

Good. Since Republicans oppose big government and support personal responsibility, we need them to find responsible, free-market solutions to the global warming problem.

Posted 547 days ago.

harryanderson

Sadly, it’s true that the Pentagon has created crises before. For example, the 2nd Gulf of Tonkin incident. In this case, however, the Pentagon’s reports are supported by a large number of non-military sources, including:

34 national science academies

97% of the most-published and most-peer-reviewed climate scientists

The IPCC, which has studied the issue more than anybody else

Since this report has such wide scientific support, I conclude that the eleven retired generals and admirals who conducted it were motivated by genuine concern for America’s well-being. If we were as patriotic as they, we would take responsibility for our own emissions.

Posted 547 days ago.

harryanderson

The military has considered global warming a national security threat since 2006. At that time, the Center for Naval Analysis asked 11 retired generals and admirals to assess the threat to national security.

Those 11 generals and admirals reported, “Projected climate change poses a serious threat to America’s national security.”

htt ps://ww w.cna.or g/reports/climate

Global warming poses a serious threat to us, but that doesn’t mean we have to pay more taxes and increase the size of government. We can meet the challenge by taking personal responsibility for our carbon emissions.

If we refuse to take personal responsibility, we will create a crisis and big government never lets a crisis go to waste.

Posted 547 days ago.

harryanderson

According to the Pentagon’s “Climate Change Adaptation Roadmap,” issued back in October, global warming threatens or national security, and may even cause an increase in terrorism.

The report says global warming may limit supplies of food and water, flood folks out, spread disease, cause electrical shortages, disrupt commerce, and lead to a lot of homeless people. These effects could undermine governments. Here’s where the terrorism comes in.

The report concludes: “These gaps in governance can create an avenue for extremist ideologies and conditions that foster terrorism.”

htt p://ww w.acq.osd.mil/ie/download/CCARprint_wForeword_c.pdf

See page four.

Those who care about America’s national security should be concerned about global warming.

Posted 547 days ago.

harryanderson

If I should stop posting here, it won’t be because I’m intimidated by someone willing to waste any amount of time trying to “hush Harry.”

Insults shan’t hush my discussions.

But in the event you present a respectable argument, my mind might be inclined to sign on to your ideas.

Posted 547 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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