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
95 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

Kunectdots

Excellent exposure on the subject of Weather Modification available on the following site.

If man is now on the cusp of controlling the weather, doesn't the "Chicken Little" fear of Climate Change/ Global Warming seem, at least, naïve?

More attention to the HAARP Project and less given to Obama's and Gore's opinions would seem to be in order.

"Weather Warfare" is a 5 part series available for viewing at;

h ttps://w ww.youtube.c om/watch?v=0aDNajyqM10&list=PLE13D989BF504681B&index=2

Posted 508 days ago.

Kunectdots

Here's one that probably eludes being connected to "global warming / climate change", although the threat is very real. As 'talented' as Al Gore thinks he is, I don't see him proposing any insurance against this future, certain eventuality.

h ttp://neo.jpl.nasa.g ov/index.html

Posted 516 days ago.

Kunectdots

"Just cant stand to be wrong can you ?"

WHILE YOU SIT THERE WRITING THAT BASKING IN THE WARMTH OF BURNING FOSSIL FUELS!

What a hypocrite!

Posted 518 days ago.

moderation

"........."

Posted 519 days ago.

moderation

. All of these yield consistent estimates of the approximate magnitude of global warming, which now stands at about twice the magnitude that we reported in 1981. Further affirmation of the reality of the warming is its spatial distribution, which has largest values at locations remote from any local human influence, with a global pattern consistent with that expected for response to global climate forcings (larger in the Northern Hemisphere than the Southern Hemisphere, larger at high latitudes than low latitudes, larger over land than over ocean).

Posted 519 days ago.

moderation

The " margin of error is just that.You interpret it to support only your position,tired.

Posted 519 days ago.

absolem

*that

Posted 520 days ago.

absolem

Stillhere, i understand your point regarding staying on topic but i could not resist in pointing out taht one action by some does not equal the same action..or reaction by others. such is politics and i think you will agree that politics has certainly tainted the honest science that should define the physical world around us.

Posted 520 days ago.

absolem

Stillhere, i am familiar with Harry and his postings. he is correct in his points. his observation that the politicians job is to get elected spotlights the complexity of representing all interests. speaking a truth does not always lend itself to be an assertion of superiority. i do not read his statement in that fashion.

Posted 521 days ago.

harryanderson

Go to the ocean heat charts I posted, and click on "show error bars."

Posted 521 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm encouraged that the oceans are storing the excess heat energy. It gives us time to figure out how to use it. It shouldn't be too difficult to draw heat from the ocean.

Like Rex Tillerson, head of Exxon-Mobile, has said, "(Global warming) is an engineering problem with an engineering solution.” He called it “manageable.”

Posted 521 days ago.

harryanderson

In the last few days, we’ve only been discussing atmospheric temperatures. That’s ridiculous, since the “globe” in global warming includes much more than the atmosphere. The ocean alone has 264 times the mass of the atmosphere, and therefore can store much more heat. In fact, Scientific American reports:

“Scientists estimate that every square meter of the planet has received between 0.5 to 1 watt (an average light bulb emits 60 watts of heat) of excess energy in the last few decades. And more than 90 percent of that energy has entered the oceans and warmed them.”

htt p://ww w.scientificamerican.co m/article/mystery-of-ocean-heat-deepens-as-climate-changes/

And NOAA just updated their global ocean heat content charts. They show the ocean heating up steadily.

ht tp://ww w.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/index1.html

Posted 521 days ago.

harryanderson

"i don't believe there is a time or frequency at which one must be limited too in their personal 'evolving'." (sic)

Nor do I. But evolve means "to change gradually." It doesn't mean to evolve and devolve and evolve and devolve ad infinitum.

When a politician reverses course, then reverses course again over the course of multiple tries for the presidency, I think many voters might conclude such politician cares more about getting elected than the issue.

Posted 521 days ago.

absolem

harryanderson....i believe that the liberal left calls flip-flopping on positions "evolving". Mitt is simply "evolving". i don't believe there is a time or frequency at which one must be limited too in their personal "evolving".

Posted 521 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, Mitt Romney has flipped (or is it flopped this time? I can't keep up with his reverses) on anthropogenic climate change again.

He gave a speech in Salt Lake City. The Deseret News reports "He also tackled climate change, describing himself as 'one of those Republicans' who believe the world is getting warmer and people contribute to the temperature changes and calling for 'real leadership' to deal with coal emissions."

Sheesh. I used to like Mitt. He sure looked better than Obama. Now, I don't know. Seems he can't be trusted. How can a guy trust Mitt when you don't know what his position will be tomorrow or the next day?

Posted 522 days ago.

moderation

Plus or minus. That is what I already said. And now you are saying it. That's great.And it was painless,huh?

Posted 522 days ago.

harryanderson

A statistical tie is not an absolute tie.

Now I'm done schooling you for now.

Posted 523 days ago.

harryanderson

100 is greater than 99.99, but not by much. It's a statistical tie. Very simple.

Posted 523 days ago.

harryanderson

Easy. It happens all the time. No controversy about that.

Posted 523 days ago.

harryanderson

Check it, and then tell us what the very first sentence in the abstract says.

Posted 523 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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