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
101 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

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 386 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 386 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 386 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 387 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 387 days ago.

harryanderson

A statistical tie is not an absolute tie.

Now I'm done schooling you for now.

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

Did you check my source, stillhere?

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

It shows your desperation that you quibble over which year was warmest by a very small amount. Here's the real relevant statistic from the paper:

"The fifteen warmest years all occurred since 1998."

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

Please learn how to read with understanding.

“The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 IN THAT ORDER, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty."(emphasis added)

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

I meant that last for ohwiseone, not stillhere.

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

You're right, stillhere. No amount of scientific proof will be good enough for some. It never has been on any issue in history.

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

I was told to find my own source, and I did. I found the best one—the paper on which NASA based its press release. There is no controversy there.

The authors conclude, “The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 .”

I don’t mind being transparent about my sources. Here it is. ht tp://ww w.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

If you expect me to find my own source, I have an excellent one in mind. It comes from scientists.

I have a lot of work to do today. I'll try to get back this evening to check out your source or to give my opinion based on the scientific literature.

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

You said we should be "reading the fine print." I'm willing to do so, if you'll say where the fine print can be found. I suspect your quote is cherry-picked. Your statements usually are.

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

You challenged me to respond to your quote. How can I respond properly if I have to guess among "many places"?

Posted 388 days ago.

harryanderson

Where did you get that quote? It interests me.

Posted 388 days ago.

moderation

dot com

Posted 389 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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