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
127 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

://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/jamestaylor/2011/07/27/new-nasa-data-blow-gaping-hold-in-global-warming-alarmism/

Facts and evidence mean nothing to liberal alarmists.

Posted 1160 days ago.

harryanderson

In the absence of those, the word of God.

Posted 1160 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure.

Evidence and logic.

Posted 1160 days ago.

harryanderson

By the way, Hansen and his co-authors published that paper in 2000. Just last month Hansen retired from NASA to work full-time advocating for action to limit anthropogenic greenhouse gasses. He probably wouldn’t have done that if he believed anthropogenic climate change isn’t a problem.

Thanks for bringing up Hansen’s body of work; he’s an authority on the subject, unlike anonymous posters.

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

Show me where Hansen said that.

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

I’m won’t comment on the “global warming hysteria” post because it’s anonymous. The two most important factors in evaluating the credibility are expertise and trustworthiness. We can’t evaluate the expertise of anonymous posters, and we should strongly suspect the trustworthiness of an anonymous post on an obscure website called “global warming hysteria.”

I’ll pay attention to any reasonable evidence, but this isn’t reasonable. Perhaps you’d like to “do this dance all day,” but I’m not willing to waste that much time. We’ve each made clear what kinds of evidence we base our opinions upon.

Posted 1161 days ago.

"After conducting the study, Hansen concluded that it was not man-made CO2 that was causing global warming."

There is no evidence that global warming is man made. Are you sure you read the article,harry?

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

(see previous post)

“But we argue that rapid warming in recent decades has been driven mainly by non-CO2 greenhouse gases (GHGs), such as chlorofluorocarbons, CH4, and N2O, not by the products of fossil fuel burning, CO2 and aerosols, the positive and negative climate forcings of which are partially offsetting. The growth rate of non-CO2 GHGs has declined in the past decade. If sources of CH4 and O3 precursors were reduced in the future, the change in climate forcing by non-CO2 GHGs in the next 50 years could be near zero. Combined with a reduction of black carbon emissions and plausible success in slowing CO2 emissions, this reduction of non-CO2 GHGs could lead to a decline in the rate of global warming, reducing the danger of dramatic climate change.”

Hansen and the other authors were clearly arguing for limits on both CO2 and non-CO2 greenhouse gases.

Like I said, we learn more when we look past headlines.

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

We learn more when we look past headlines.

On the “occupycorporatism” site to which Ithink linked, the body of the article does not reflect the headline. Nowhere does the body of the article state that James Hansen “admits global warming is not man-made.”

Here is the quote attributed to Hansen in the article and on which the headline is apparently based: “Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.”

So the headline is an unsupported claim. Next we’ll look at what the summary in the abstract of the actual paper linked to by Suzanne Posel, the author of the article. That abstract makes it clear that the authors were talking about human-generated non CO2 greenhouse gases: (see next post)

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

We learn more when we look past headlines.

On the “occupycorporatism” site to which Ithink linked, the body of the article does not reflect the headline. Nowhere does the body of the article state that James Hansen “admits global warming is not man-made.”

Here is the quote attributed to Hansen in the article and on which the headline is apparently based: “Our estimates of global climate forcings indicate that it is the non-CO2 GHGs that have caused most observed global warming.”

So the headline is an unsupported claim. Next we’ll look at what the summary in the abstract of the actual paper linked to by Suzanne Posel, the author of the article. That abstract makes it clear that the authors were talking about human-generated non CO2 greenhouse gases: (see next post)

Posted 1161 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/larrybell/2013/03/19/the-feverish-hunt-for-evidence-of-a-man-made-global-warming-crisis/

We can dance this tango all day,harry.

Just don't expect the rest of us to finance the fabulous fantasies of the climate changers. Supply all your own money for the get rich fast kids like Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Obama's friends..

Posted 1161 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.globalwarminghysteria.c om/ten-myths-of-global-warming/

The sky is not falling.

Posted 1161 days ago.

It all depends on each individual's common sense interpretation of the many differing opinions.

h ttp://w ww.occupycorporatism.c om/eco-fascist-james-hansen-admits-global-warming-is-not-man-made/

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

Exactly! The oceans started warming at the same time humans started burning more fossil fuels.

This from the link Random21 posted confirms what I said,

“Previous research has shown that the Earth is absorbing more heat than it is radiating, and that 90 percent of the excess heat added to the climate system since the 1960s has been stored in the oceans.”

So the link put up by Random21 confirms it—there has been a warming trend, and the oceans are storing the excess heat.

Posted 1161 days ago.

RANDOM21

livescience.c om/19414-oceans-warming-135-years.htm l Even admits they cooked the numbers but oceans have been warming for the last 15 decades not just recently.

Posted 1161 days ago.

harryanderson

“…there has not been a warming trend in the last 10-12 years.”

That statement isn’t true. There has been a warming trend. The oceans are warming.

“…the Earth’s mean near-surface temperature paused its rise during the 2000–2010 period… Most of this excess energy was absorbed in the top 700?m of the ocean at the onset of the warming pause…Our results hence point at the key role of the ocean heat uptake in the recent warming slowdown. The ability to predict retrospectively this slowdown not only strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models, but also enhances the socio-economic relevance of operational decadal climate predictions.”

ww w.nature.co m/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate1863.html

So “most of this excess (heat) was absorbed in the top 700m of the ocean,” and that “strengthens our confidence in the robustness of our climate models.”

Posted 1161 days ago.

May 25, and we are bringing in my hanging baskets and potted flowers. Woe is me.

I seem to keep reading that there has not been a warming trend in the last 10-12 years.

But as far as what people believe, watch the street interviews on Hannity and OReilly. Those poor dumb nuts don't know up from down. It's pathetic.

Posted 1162 days ago.

harryanderson

As I posted earlier, even a majority of Republicans disagrees that climate change is “glorified tea reading.”

“For the first time since Fall 2008, a majority (51%) of self-identified Republicans stated that they think global warming is occurring, as of late Fall 2012.”

closup.umich.ed u/files/nsee-climate-belief-fall-2012.pdf

Posted 1162 days ago.

Give us a date when the world's climate was ever stable. It is not possible. The changes were so immense that the geographic face of the earth was changed beyond comprehension.

And there is no written record of "normal" temperatures, precipitation,etc., to make valid comparisons. Climate change is glorified tea leaf reading. It is also fraud.

Posted 1162 days ago.

harryanderson

Public: Inhofe way off

Senator James Inhofe has repeatedly denied that the US should reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The American public disagrees, according to a recent report from the Yale Project on Climate Change Communication and the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication.

“Six in ten Americans (59%) say the U.S. should reduce its own greenhouse gas emissions regardless of what other countries do. Relatively few (10%) say the U.S. should reduce its emissions only if other industrialized and/or developing countries do –and only 6 percent of Americans say the U.S. should not reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.”

Sen. Inhofe has mentioned the economic costs of addressing global warming. Americans say they will pay economic costs.

“A large majority of Americans (84%) say the U.S. should make an effort to reduce global warming, even if it has economic costs.”

htt p://environment.yale.edu/climate-communication/files/Climate-Policy-Support-April

Posted 1162 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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