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
47 minutes 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

OH for the love of all that is holy.

"The phrase holocaust denier and witch burner has been tossed at me a couple of times. "

WOW! This is hilarious. You can't even cite comments made toward you in a factual way.

It was I who said that.

As to the holocaust denier claim. I did not call you a holocaust denier. I compared your mentality with those that ALLOWED the holocaust to happen.

I also COMPARED your MENTALITY to the mentality of those that burned supposed witches at the stake.

Jesus H Christ!

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

1/15/14 Tiredofit, I’ve never compared you to a holocaust denier, but I’d like to know, too. Do you agree with 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?"

Posted 279 days ago.

Kendall78

"The lack of maturity is when one chooses to compare someone who doesn't believe as they do to a holocaust denier."

Would you be offended if I compared your tactics to a Armenian Holocaust denier?

Oh, I don't need or desire your respect. I simply asked for you to give a simple yes or no response but you seem quite cowardly to give one.

Posted 279 days ago.

Kendall78

As for Dr. Spencer, I like his approach to all this. He has his educated opinion on the topic yet seems to advocate that everyone should keep an open mind as well. To get a better understanding of climate change, we need more data than we currently have. That's good science in any case.

The end result is roughly the same. If mankind isn't causing climate change through our use of fossil fuels, then there is nothing we can do about it.

If mankind is effecting the climate through our use, then it makes sense to develop newer and cleaner forms of energy. It doesn't hurt us to do this in a responsible manner. Sometimes I think their are those that are simply afriad that some govt organization is simply going to turn everything off which is a chicken little kind of fear.

Posted 279 days ago.

Kendall78

“You will see this break down on party lines pretty quickly…”

A not so clever way of dismissing any opposition. Too bad it doesn't work since I am a Moderate Conservative and not Liberal.

Posted 279 days ago.

Kendall78

"The Drama queen is the one who chooses such terms, that would be YOU"

Translation: "I am rubber you are glue, your words bounce off me and stick to you"

Very mature Tired, keep it up. Oh, in case you forgot, do you agree with 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?"

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

“You will see this break down on party lines pretty quickly…”

Not by me. I won’t let my political preferences affect my willingness to accept or reject physical evidence.

Posted 279 days ago.

Kendall78

"You will see this break down on party lines pretty quickly and the emotion behind it is pretty scary at times. The phrase holocaust denier and witch burner has been tossed at me a couple of times."

Don't forget drama queen. You've been called that too.

The reasons for the comparisson to a holocaust denier was the methods you both tend to use. This has been explained multiple times already but just as a holocaust denier, you simply ignore facts as they are given to you.

Posted 279 days ago.

harryanderson

Anderogg, et. al., whom I cited previously, wrote, “we have likely compiled the strongest and most credentialed researchers in CE (convinced by the evidence) and UE (unconvinced by the evidence) groups. Citation and publication analyses must be treated with caution in inferring scientific credibility, but we suggest that our methods and our expertise and prominence criteria provide conservative, robust, and relevant indicators of relative credibility of CE and UE groups of climate researchers.”

I agree. Publishing in peer-reviewed journals and being cited in them enhance an author’s credibility.

Posted 279 days ago.

luvthesouth

anthropogenic (human-caused) pollution. But they’re not going to find something if they don’t search for it."

it is an interesting site with information that may add to everyones discussion.

Posted 279 days ago.

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 279 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 279 days ago.

Kendall78

"That lie has been repeated over and over again"

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

Posted 279 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 279 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 279 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 279 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 279 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 279 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 279 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 279 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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