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
6 hours ago.
by mythravere
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

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 434 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 434 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 434 days ago.

mythravere

Please feel free to note how that is wrong.

Article titles for later searching will be GREATLY appreciated!

Posted 434 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 434 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 434 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 434 days ago.

mythravere

R1KRA8=Tinfoilhat

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

Posted 434 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 434 days ago.

mythravere

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

Posted 434 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 434 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 434 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 435 days ago.

mythravere

Actually that "a person" didn't.

Posted 435 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 435 days ago.

mythravere

The problem with the right is who's doing all the talking. It aint the level headed ones! You got nutcases and media born political pundits setting the tone. Everyone else gets drowned out in the collective gas release that comes from vociferous ones.

The same can be said of the left in some regards but the right lets it fly with a lot of intensity.

More than is warranted in fact.

And they just repeat it and repeat and repeat it...which happens to be a tactic that they chose to use.

Had a person tell me the other day that they can't talk to their brother about Obama because the brother gets so flustered over Obama.

I bet the brother watches Fox News.

Posted 435 days ago.

harryanderson

I am far from an anomaly within the Republican Party.

If the Republican Party kicked out every one of us who believe humans are warming the planet, the Party would lose 2 members out of every 5, since, according to Gallup…

“The majority of Democrats, at 78%, ascribe global warming to human activities, while 39% of Republicans agree.”

w ww.gallup.co m/poll/161714/republican-skepticism-global-warming-eases.aspx

Posted 436 days ago.

mythravere

I'm fully aware and keeping up nicely thank you.

Through your posts you express the position the Harry is not a legitimate conservative due to to his stance on certain issues.

All the warming foolishness? There isn't any. Its happening.

I feel you are letting politics inform your opinions on the issue.

Posted 436 days ago.

harryanderson

You're not telling the truth, Tiredofit. I never called you anti-science.

Posted 436 days ago.

mythravere

Plagiarism? Noooo. Copy paste from internet comment I found that didn't know the source.

Its not as if the source would somehow magically mean anything though.

I but let me guess I am intellectually lazy for not going and looking it up?

Ok you got me! LOL!

Posted 436 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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