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
23 hours ago.
by Stillhere
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

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 314 days ago.

harryanderson

75 out of 77 is good odds to me.

Posted 314 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And I find it amusing that you think a 2009 study is outdated, then cite a 2008 study yourself.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 314 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 314 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 314 days ago.

Kendall78

"Where does the 97 percent come from? Where did you get that figure?"

Add a little of this quote, "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s."

And the result is: Where does the empirical evidence come from? Where did you get that information?

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

You mean our President. You are an American citizen correct?

Also Harry gave you the information so you can read (shocking new breathrough in research you might want to try) and come up with your own educated opinion instead of the blind as abat ones you typically create out of nothing.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

I think if you answer around half of the questions directed at you in the last few weeks, maybe Harry or others might tell you where the info comes from. Oh wait..they already did but you won't read anything that goes against what you believe in.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

I thought this was an interesting news story that talked about "marine ice sheet instability": w w w.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25729750

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

“Don't want to defend your 97% now do ya harry?”

Earlier this afternoon, I cited a study that backs up my comment.

I can cite more, but it might be pointless, since you said before, Tiredofit, that “it’s a political (agenda), not a scientific discussion.” I see no sense in citing scientific work to someone who states that science has no relevance to the topic.

You may have changed your mind. It seems you now want to discuss scientists’ conclusions.

Have you become willing to consider scientific evidence? If you are, we have a basis for discussing scientists’ work.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

I am terribly sorry that you cannot see the humor in that you whine on and on about your perceptions of a person's math skills and whatever else your delusional mind grasps a hold of, but yet you do so in a way that shows your own vast ignorance.

But really, instead of shoving your head in the sand on these topics, offer up an actual scientific counter to them.

I personally think you know you are wrong and cannot bear to admit it. Otherwise you would have offered up evidence to the contrary.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

@Harry- it's all part of their head in the sand approach to science. If they don't like it, they ignore it. They are no better than Obama ignoring all the bad that is Obamacare.

Posted 314 days ago.

harryanderson

The scientific evidence grows stronger.

Geochemist James Powell found and reviewed 2258 peer-reviewed “climate articles” written by 9136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013. He found exactly one article by a sole author that, in Powell’s words, “rejected man-made global warming.”

htt p://blogs.scientificamerican.c om/the-curious-wavefunction/2014/01/10/about-that-consensus-on-global-warming-9136-agree-one-disagrees/

Of course, we shouldn’t expect the overwhelming conclusions of scientists who publish in the field to change the opinions of those who think it’s a political rather than a scientific discussion.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

"how global warming hysteria leads to bad science, pandering politicians, and misguided policies that hurt the poor"

No one is being hysterical on here. Most people are citing good science. No one here is pandering to any politicians.

It's just a request but please quit spamming the site with article titles without any discussion on your part.

Posted 314 days ago.

Kendall78

"Hope math or science is NOT involved."

Try "are" next time numbnuts before you try to correct others.

Posted 314 days ago.

luvthesouth

mythravere: you wrote "Hey I might make 11 bucks an hour." i just wanted to comment that i think one should never feel ashamed or feel the need to defend or justify their wage to anyone. honest work is honest work. it shows that you have convinced someone or some entity that you offer a service to them that is worthy of compensation. as much as you use the scripture in less than palatable ways sometimes, the parable regarding compensation seems rather appropriate and often times forgotten in the argument by some concerning "Fair Wage".

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

The funny thing is that with the job I am in or at least certain aspects of it. You want people to do the job right. Otherwise someone could get hurt or killed.

As a matter of fact I know of a guy right now who complains he isn't paid enough and his job quality is subpar because of that. By his own choice.

They pretend to pay him and he pretends to work.

Think long and hard about that sport.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

Hey I might make 11 bucks an hour but hey it aint like I am a millionaire with the supposed intelligence to attain that wealth who squeals about religious rights being trampled on but wants to introduce restrictions on women's reproductive rights and gays.

So much for being against government control and all that eh?

I guess thats the type of hypocrisy that only chit tons of money can buy.

LOL!

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

So I take it by your comment that anyone who makes less than you is some kinda piece of crap right?

I have to ask. Why is it that you republipukes have such a problem with low to lower paid workers?

Man if things were the way the right wanted them especially the business end of the party low paid people would be making less.

Posted 314 days ago.

mythravere

"Wow Tired, do you ever try to back up any of your claims on the subject of man made climate change?"

The chances of that happening are the same chances a wing has in gaining lift in a vacuum.

Posted 315 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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