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
153 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

luvthesouth

global-average temperature increase that has been observed over the last one hundred years or more. But to many politicians and the public, the term carries the implication that mankind is responsible for that warming. This website describes evidence from my group’s government-funded research that suggests global warming is mostly natural, and that the climate system is quite insensitive to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions and aerosol pollution.

Believe it or not, very little research has ever been funded to search for natural mechanisms of warming…it has simply been assumed that global warming is manmade. This assumption is rather easy for scientists since we do not have enough accurate global data for a long enough period of time to see whether there are natural warming mechanisms at work.

The United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) claims that the only way they can get their computerized climate models to produce the observed warming is with anthrop

Posted 953 days ago.

luvthesouth

kendall78 et al...please find an excerpt from the website of Dr. Roy Spencer, Ph.D. "Roy W. Spencer received his Ph.D. in meteorology at the University of Wisconsin-Madison in 1981. Before becoming a Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama in Huntsville in 2001, he was a Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, where he and Dr. John Christy received NASA’s Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal for their global temperature monitoring work with satellites. Dr. Spencer’s work with NASA continues as the U.S. Science Team leader for the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite. He has provided congressional testimony several times on the subject of global warming.

Dr. Spencer’s research has been entirely supported by U.S. government agencies: NASA, NOAA, and DOE. He has never been asked by any oil company to perform any kind of service. Not even Exxon-Mobil.

“Global warming” refers to the global-a

Posted 953 days ago.

Kendall78

"That lie has been repeated over and over again"

So there is no doubt, what "lie" are you referring to?

Posted 953 days ago.

Kendall78

@Tired- Try answering the first part before you go after the second, "So do you disagree with Richard Lizden the Climate Change Skeptic?"

Posted 953 days ago.

Kendall78

"This is NOT 97 percent of scientists, this is a carefully selected slice of scientists."

What kind of scientists do you want to be asked? Those that focus on Theoretical Physics? How about Astrophysics? Maybe Computer Science or Veterinary Medicine?

Why would we want the opinions of scientists that do not have an education in Climatology? It would be like asking a Doctor in Library Studies for their opinion of a heart transplant procedure...it would make no sense.

Posted 953 days ago.

Kendall78

"I never said that Man was changing climate"

So do you disagree with Richard Lizden the Climate Change Skeptic? Lizden said the following, 1. "We all agree that temperature has increased since 1800."

2. "We all agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas."

3. "there’s hardly anyone serious who says that man has no role. And in many ways, those have never been the questions. The questions have always been, as they ought to be in science, how much?"

What makes your opinion more viable than Lizden's educated position on the topic?

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

For those who haven't heard, I think it’s time to restate my position on anthropogenic climate change.

I agree with Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson’s statement when he “…acknowledged that burning of fossil fuels is warming the planet, but said society will be able to adapt.”

htt p://ww w.businessinsider.c om/exxon-ceo-rex-tillerson-climate-change-2012-6#ixzz2qV1nhQjg

Tillerson has said it’s “an engineering problem with an engineering solution” and called it “manageable.”

As an optimist, I agree.

As a problem-solver, I also know that we have to address a problem before we can manage it. Fortunately, many folks are addressing the problem, despite the efforts of the counter climate change movement.

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

And, Tiredofit,

I’d like to hear any answer you have to the very relevant question Kendall poses.

If mankind’s activities are changing the climate, and greenhouse gases aren’t changing the climate, what activities of mankind do you believe are changing the climate?

Huh?

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

They “fully support the tenets of the (IPCC).”

The National Academy of Sciences study characterizes those tenets thusly:

“…the primary conclusions of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC): anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.”

Now, even though I didn’t intend to make that claim (nor do I now so claim), and later retracted it, I had already provided evidence lending weight to it.

Tiredofit ignored that evidence, and instead focused on other evidence I provided to support another claim: that 97% of climate scientists agree man’s activities are altering the climate.”

Then, while I was away earning a living, he claimed victory, even though he has never addressed the claim he says he’s debunked.

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

I’ll repost my first post of the morning.

A 2010 study published by the National Academy of Sciences found that “97%-98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field fully support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.”

htt p://ww w.pnas.or g/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html

Posted 953 days ago.

Kendall78

"How is that as you say an endorsement of your greenhouse theory?"

What other human activity has been discussed that could have a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?

Posted 953 days ago.

mythravere

"I will debunk your other claims soon enough."

I said that too myself in the voice of the Terminator....aaaah comedy gold.

Get to the choppa!

Posted 953 days ago.

mythravere

Take apart the claims of a warmer?

LOL!

Ok. Seriously. A lot of other "warmer" "claims" have been made....yet where have you taken them apart?

You've invested so much energy in this one little point. Why not show the same gusto as the others.

I guess this is the one where you felt you had a chance of getting somewhere right?

Posted 953 days ago.

mythravere

"And that folks is how you take apart the claims of a warmer."

hahahahahahaah LOL!

No what you did there is find a singular point of contention and then camp out on it and claim victory.

There are so many points to be talked about on this issue. Far better ones than this low hanging fruit you've latched on.

Oh my god this is hilarious.

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

“Is there a basis for the claim that 97% of scientists agree that greenhouse gas is warming the planet. If there is, show me a study or poll that supports this exact figure.”

I already did, in the first post I made this morning. You ignored it.

Now I need to get back to work. Later.

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

97% isn’t excluded, as you suggest by claiming “no basis.” I've provided evidence that it's a very high percentage (essentially everybody), and that it even includes "the scourge of...alarmists."

Do you agree with the Weekly Standard that essentially everybody agrees that CO2 and greenhouse gases are warming the earth?

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

I don’t know what you mean by “current theory.” Since you concede that 97% of the climate scientists surveyed agreed man has a “significant role in climate change,” what activities of mankind do you think cause that change?

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

That’s a reasonable comment, luvthesouth. I’ve always said that it’s a solvable engineering problem.

Posted 953 days ago.

harryanderson

“…there is nothing to support 97% of scientists agree that greenhouse gas is changing our climate.”

I don’t want to make a claim of a specific percentage of climate scientists who agree that greenhouse gas is warming the earth, since, to my knowledge, no studies have backed that up.

However, the quote from the Weekly Standard is consistent with a high percentage.

Again, it said, “Essentially everybody agrees.”

Posted 953 days ago.

luvthesouth

some interesting numbers concerning CO2. currently it is estimated that the worlds forests absorb 40-50% of the worlds total man-made extra CO2 produced by burning carbon based fuels. although what we produce is a small percentage compared to what the earth naturally produces, the extra CO2 that we produce can't be totally absorbed naturally. if the numbers are correct then it is evident that we either need to increase the number of trees, reduce our carbon output or choose a variant of both. personally i choose the latter if not for any reason other than i like trees.

Posted 953 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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