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
36 minutes ago.
by Ithink
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

It matters not if you ignore me by the way.

The issues I raise about you are going to show the weakness in your argument and lay bare your motivations.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

Are you capable of formulating an opinion outside what is considered acceptable in your chosen social sphere?

Peer pressure too much for you?

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

You know nothing of the science.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

You won't ignore me.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

True or false.

Your position on this issue is a direct result of staying within the bounds of what is considered an accepted position by the Republicans that you consider your peers.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

You're talking to me now.

If that isn't suitable for you...leave.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

Why do you say no Tiredofit?

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

Explain why we should not just assume your grievance with this issue is 100% political based in nature.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

Why do you have a problem with man being the cause of climate change?

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

This argument is becoming muddied up by the wrong details.

Its time to focus on your motivation.

Lets talk about that.

Posted 284 days ago.

mythravere

Those two questions that vex you can be enriched with this little gem.

How much and by what process can planetary warming be attributed to natural phenomenon?

You say its all natural.

Explain why you believe that.

Show us the proof.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

I addressed all your points, but you haven’t addressed a single one of mine.

Accuse me of running if you like. Perhaps you get paid to argue your side of this debate. I don’t. I have to provide for my family by other means.

If you think leaving off of an online discussion to provide for one’s family constitutes running, so be it. I think most would disagree with you. I sure do.

Adios for now.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

“No they gave their OPINION of the ASBRACTS of papers.”

That’s wrong. Read the study. They surveyed people.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

The opinions of all have relevance, but not to my comment, which was about climate scientists. Your refusal to understand that testifies to your closed mind.

And the opinions of the experts in the field have the most relevance.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

How are my comments nasty? They're not meant to be.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

The studies you cited certainly are meaningful, but not relevant. I wrote of climate scientists. I didn’t write of broadcast meteorologists and petroleum engineers.

Doran and Zimmerman didn’t give their own opinions. They gave the opinions of the climate scientists who responded.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

75 out of 77 is good odds to me.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

And I find it amusing that you think a 2009 study is outdated, then cite a 2008 study yourself.

Now it’s up to you. Answer my counters to your weak rebuttals if you can.

Nevertheless, you probably won’t hear any more from me until tomorrow evening. Bedtime approaches. I have to earn a living, and I don’t always have time to talk to those who’ve closed their minds.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

I can answer each issue you raise.

1. Warming hasn’t stopped, but that’s another issue, and not relevant to my comment.

2. Sure, only about 30% of those asked responded. To say that sample is unrepresentative, one would have to prove that climate scientists who accept the consensus are less motivated than those who don’t. Can you prove that?

3. Did you read the study? The researchers purposely pared it to two specific questions in order to encourage participation.

4. Did someone with a “political agenda” write the Forbes article?

5. Broadcast meteorologists aren’t climate scientists.

6. The Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta aren’t climate scientists, either. We’ve been through this before. They’re mostly engineers and geologists employed by Alberta’s large fossil fuel industry.

Your error-laden rebuttal fails to crack the wall of consensus among climate scientists.

Posted 284 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure, Tiredofit, sure.

I’ll present some more evidence you refuse consider because it’s scientific, not political.

A 2009 study by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman was published by the American Geophysical Union. The researchers sent questionnaires to 10,257 scientists from a wide range of disciplines. 3146 responded.

Of all respondents, 82% agreed with this statement: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Of those “who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change,” 97.4% agreed.

htt p://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

That’s the second time I’ve cited evidence to back up my statement.

Your turn, Mr. Political Agenda.

I ask again. Are you now willing to consider scientific evidence?

Posted 284 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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