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
8 hours ago.
by harryanderson
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

mythravere

Now Tiredofit lol. Who is my source? The authors themselves! Did you just waltz right over the post where I mentioned them and one of them specifically?

And me mentioning of the soros linked site was me handing you the noose.

You latched straight onto that angle just like I thought you would.

In the very article you mentioned the author of the study took issue with Mr Taylor's "findings".

How you missed that is beyond me.

And you call me delusional? Ha!

This isn't the first time I have seen a righty reference that Forbes article. If you dont want to be called a denier I'd try finding conclusive information that refutes climate change science by using science.

Good luck with that.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

First off. Kunnect there are natural phenomenon in play when it comes to the climatic changes this world is experiencing.

After all we are in an inter-glacial period right now. But natural causes can not account for all of the warming we are experiencing.

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

BTW, Tiredofit,

If you care to read the actual paper, you'll find a link to it in the Forbes op-ed.

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

Kunectdots:

Who is Easttexas51?

Posted 416 days ago.

Kunectdots

Easttexas51 wrote:

“The Canadian government has made several measurements since, which show that the North Magnetic Pole is moving continually northwestward. In 2001, an expedition located the pole at 81.3°N 110.8°W. In 2007, the latest survey found the pole at 83.95°N 120.72°W.[13] During the 20th century it moved 1100 km, and since 1970 its rate of motion has accelerated from 9 km/year to approximately 52 km/year”

"Just saying that it may not be just the rise of Co2 causing climate change. The north magnetic pole has moved over 1000 miles in my lifetime and the movement is accelerating. The Earth has experienced many pole reversals. Do you not think this might have some influence on climate? People seem to think that just because the Earth has had a certain look to it since recorded history, that it will always remain so. It won’t. Not unless you can control the Sun and all other natural forces."

AMEN!

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

After comparing the actual paper to Mr. Taylor’s op-ed, it’s clear that Mr. Taylor misrepresented the findings by failing to inform his readers that the “scientists and engineers” sampled came from a carefully selected group with strong ties to the petroleum industry, and that the study aimed to sample that one industry.

I am surprised by one statistic here. The largest group of this obviously biased sample--36% --believe we should comply with the Kyoto Protocol. I would have thought that percentage would be much lower.

Thanks for bringing this to my attention. I found the study fascinating. Forget Forbes. Forget Thinkprogress. Go to the source.

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

These results don’t surprise me. I suggest you take an hour to read the actual paper. It’s interesting.

I’ll quote some key passages.

The research question was: “How do professional experts frame the reality of climate change and themselves as experts, while engaging in defensive institutional work against others?” (“defensive institutional work” being “the maintenance of institutions against disruptions.”)

“To address this, we reconstruct the frames of one group of experts who have not received much attention in previous research and yet play a central role in understanding industry responses – professional experts in petroleum and related industries.”

So, the survey deliberately chose an organization heavily laden with members of the petroleum industry. The survey included no climate scientists. 84% of the respondents were engineers, most of who were getting paid to extract oil and gas from the tar sands of Alberta and defend their companies.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

Oh and did you read the comments on that article. Specifically read the post by Lianne Lefsrud. One of the authors of that study James Taylor references.

Hmmm...a good read also.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

Please feel free to note how that is wrong.

Article titles for later searching will be GREATLY appreciated!

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

And then there is this.

"James Taylor, managing editor of The Heartland Institute’s Environment & Climate News, recently wrote a Forbes blog post about a new study of professional engineers and geoscientists involved in Alberta, Canada’s petroleum industry. According to the authors of the study, however, Taylor got most of the details in his post wrong, and Taylor has not corrected or retracted the blog post even though his errors have been pointed out to him. Furthermore, Taylor republished his deceptive and dishonest post at The Heartland Institute this morning, three days after the study’s authors corrected Taylor. Taylor has a made a habit of distorting scientific studies in the past – his new blog post is no different. ..."

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

Oh google this. James Taylor misinterprets study by 180 degrees.

A quote from that article.

"The APEGA survey is noteworthy for its exposure of the disparity between the views of engineers and geoscientists employed by petroleum companies, vs. the rest of the community of actively publishing climate and earth scientists. Denialism increased still further among the top-level oil and gas engineers. Although the cause behind this trend is unclear, it shows at the very least a correlation between ties to oil and gas and climate denial views. In no way does it undermine the strong agreement among publishing scientists that human-caused global warming is real and a problem."

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

God dang! LOL!

That Article was written by James Taylor who has ties with the Heartland Institute a CONSERVATIVE and libertarian "think" tank!

Oh no conflict of interest there!

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

R1KRA8=Tinfoilhat

I responded the way I did because of past posts directed at me on a personal level.

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

I realize that it's nearly impossible not to be labeled, or stereotyped by others.

However, I see no sense in doing it to myself.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

And as you know thats when you get dismissed as a fraud.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

Harry its near impossible to not be labeled. Speak your opinion and who ever is across the way reading it they will almost always respond to you like you are part of the party opposite to them if they disagree with you.

The vast majority of people are holed up in one of the two parties.

If you aren't in either of those groups then the ones in it dont really know how to deal with your opinion.

Posted 416 days ago.

mythravere

Grammar corrections the O'l standby when you got nothing better to say but still want to sling some mud! LOL!

Pardon me for offending your sensibilities!

Posted 416 days ago.

harryanderson

BTW, Mythravere,

I am not a "legitimate conservative." I don't attach ideological labels like "conservative" or "liberal" to myself.

Here's why:

I don't subscribe to all the positions to which those who call currently call themselves conservatives subscribe. If I call myself a conservative, or a liberal, or a libertarian, or another ideological label, I'm encouraging people to assign positions to me which aren't mine.

In short, I'd be stereotyping myself and letting others define me. Not a good thing.

Posted 417 days ago.

mythravere

Actually that "a person" didn't.

Posted 417 days ago.

harryanderson

Myth,

"The collective gas release (from the) vociferous ones" gets attention because it smells like it comes from a garbage diet.

Posted 417 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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