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 Stillhere
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

And of course you, Tiredofit, try to deflect attention. You refuse to answer my relevant question and demand I answer an irrelevant question.

I ask these questions knowing full well you won't answer. But your avoidance tells the reader a lot.

BTW: I'd be glad to discuss my views on the origin of the universe. However, since that isn't relevant to this discussion and my time is limited, I cannot do so here.

Do you want to start a thread about it? Or should I?

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

And here's the real kicker. This quote was published by Watts HIMSELF. He got it from Cook's original press release.

"From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."

Read it again. Less than one percent of the 12,000 papers "rejected AGW."

By the way, Tiredofit. Less than one percent of all the papers endorse your view.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

Back to Cook's study. Watts says Cook lied. That article was published May 27, 2013.

Two months later, in a study to which I linked, Cook responded to Watts' charges. Cook asked the authors to rate their own papers. The self-ratings confirmed the 97% consensus.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, I'd say the important government figures who have harassed the scientists are a prime example of the out-of-control, evil big government you're always talking about.

Would you agree, Tiredofit?

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, it's a wonder ANY climate scientists would come out in favor of global warming given how Congressional committees, e-mail hackers, and powerful politicians like Cucinelli and Monkton have harassed and tried to discredit them.

I wonder how many climate scientists who know AGW is real fear speaking up.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, it's ridiculous to consider the opinions of those who express no opinion.

Remember the search terms used to select the papers. The authors searched for "global warming" and "global climate change." Those terms could be used in a large variety of contexts. However, our discussion doesn't involve all those contexts; here, we argue whether global warming is anthropogenic.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

I see no lie in Cook's study. The authors never claimed to study papers that expressed no opinion. Here's the 2nd paragraph of the original press release, linked to by Watts:

" The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

Since you say we all pick what science to believe, Tiredofit--

Which scientists do you believe on this issue.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

Since you say we all pick what science to believe, Tiredofit--

Which scientists do you believe on this issue.

Posted 177 days ago.

harryanderson

And Cook himself asked some of the authors to rate their own papers, but he didn’t confine himself to a cherry-picked sample of seven. He asked 8500 of the original 12,000 authors to rate their papers. Of the 8500 authors, 1200, authors of 2142 of the 12,000 papers, responded, and 97.2% supported the consensus view.

htt p://ww w.skepticalscience.co m/Consensus-Project-self-rating-data-now-available.html

Cook’s 97% stands, especially as it’s supported by Doran & Kendall-Zimmerman 2009, Rosenberg et al 2010, and Anderegg et al 2010.

Posted 178 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit claims the Cook study is invalid because of a blog post that asked a whole 7 authors, all skeptics, to compare Cook’s ratings of their papers to their own.

The post referred to only 7 papers. Out of 12,000 papers Cook reviewed, the 7 polled by the blog is statistically insignificant.

Not only that, one of the authors cherry-picked to poll, Nir Shaviv, admits: “I couldn't write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing.”

Since Shiviv himself wrote misleading words, Cook, et. al. may be excused for misclassifying them.

htt p://ww w.forbes.co m/sites/jamestaylor/2013/05/30/global-warming-alarmists-caught-doctoring-97-percent-consensus-claims/

Posted 178 days ago.

Kendall78

Drat Harry, you threw that out too early. I was going to put that up after Tired would try to say that stabilized was good.

Posted 179 days ago.

harryanderson

Politifact reports:

"Even Paul C. 'Chip' Knappenberger, a scholar at the Cato Institute, said Rubio had gone too far by saying the situation had 'stabilized.' While global warming 'certainly has slowed down considerably' over the past 16 or 17 years, Knappenberger said confirmation that the situation has 'stabilized' would take 'another 10 to 20 years.'

"'The pace will probably pick back up again at sometime in the future,' Knappenberger said. 'But when that will be, or what the new pace will be, are far from scientifically agreed upon characteristics.'"

Posted 179 days ago.

harryanderson

On O'Reilly's show, Rubio said "surface temperatures (on) the earth have stabilized." Politifact rated Rubio's statement "mostly false."

htt p://ww w.politifact.co m/truth-o-meter/statements/2014/may/27/marco-rubio/marco-rubio-surface-temperatures-earth-have-st/

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

Now obviously a politician that dumb would be voted out if he actually thought that way about "stablization" of a historically high murder rate as something positive.

But why is it that there are people that think a "stabilized" (Marco Rubio), yet historically high, global warming rate is something positive?

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

Paraphrasing something I heard a person say; For twenty years the murder rate of our (blank)city has risen steadily with an increase of 2 more murders per year.

Mr. Politician comes to the podium and explains that going over the paperwork, it is a fact that the murder rate had in fact stabilized in their city.

A reporter asks if that means the rate is going down, Mr. Politician says, "no".

So the rate is still historically high? Mr. Politician says, "yes".

So what are you going to do about the murder rate then? Mr. Politician says, "Why..nothing..why would we, the murder rate has stablizied."

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

Since you bring up Cook; "he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from. There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than ****** donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups."

This is from his own website so it seems he is pretty straight forward with his site's position on science.

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

Skeptical Science was merely for reference. If you believe information posted there or not, let it be because the science is good or bad...not because of the person who put it there.

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

"So you agree that funding can taint information?"

I've never gave a agree or disagree on the topic. Others have but I rather let the science speak for itself.

My mentioning Legates affiliations was strictly for those that think it's more about politics than science.

Posted 179 days ago.

Kendall78

For those that thinks this is more about politics than science...did you know that Dr. Legates is affiliated with NCPA? And did you know that NCPA is funded by Exxon?

Now one who believes this is all about money and politics should find Legates opinions to highly skeptical.

Posted 179 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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