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

moderation

We aren't building a piano, just a box to put it in. Just as we aren't trying to land a craft on Mars.

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

We aren't building a piano, just a box to put it in. Just as we aren't trying to land a craft on Mars.

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

"Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount."

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

"Another analysis, from the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project, drawn from ten times as many measuring stations as GISS, concluded that if 2014 was a record year, it was by an even tinier amount."

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

You can't prove that it wasn't. The margin of error is .71 of a degree F, either way.Trend is warming, not cooling.

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

You can't prove that it wasn't. The margin of error is .71 of a degree F, either way.Trend is warming, not cooling.

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

And the heating of the oceans should be alarming to even greek.

Posted 557 days ago.

moderation

But, it ain't cooling!!!

Posted 557 days ago.

harryanderson

I agree. It's not true that 97% of all scientists agree AGW has catastrophic consequences.

But, as I said, 97% of respondents to a survey "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. . . think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

And those scientists who specialize in climate change and whose articles have stood the test of peer review are the experts, in my opinion. You disagree, and I'm okay with that.

Posted 558 days ago.

harryanderson

Again. My statement is accurate.

Posted 558 days ago.

harryanderson

I'm not responsible for what Barack Obama says. His statement earned Politifact's "lie of the year" award, not mine. My statement is accurate.

I'm not responsible for what Al Gore says, either.

I don't like much of what either of those guys say, despite your delusions to the contrary.

Posted 558 days ago.

harryanderson

You seem confused about what I wrote a few hours ago. I said nothing about “a consensus of scientist (sic) who agree that man is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.”

Perhaps it would be helpful to you if I repeated my words. I wrote: In a survey published by the National Academy of Sciences, 97.4% (75 of 77) of respondents “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. . . think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

My words should be clear. I wasn’t referring to “scientist(s)” or “all scientists.”

You’re also confused about my citation.

Stop distorting what I write. It prevents rational discussion.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

"...to be saying 97% of all scientists agree on this is absurd."

I agree with that statement. Of course, that's not what I said.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

Precisely, Stillhere,

Like you said yourself, only "0.7 per cent rejected AGW." That's why the scientific debate frustrates Joe Bast.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

The New American isn't peer-reviewed. The study I cited is, which makes it much more credible in scientific circles.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

Fact Number 1. In a survey published by the National Academy of Sciences, 97.4% (75 of 77) of respondents “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. . . think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Fact Number 2. Your childish insults upset neither the survey nor me.

Have a nice rest of the weekend. I will.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, you try to turn it into a political debate because, as Bast said, the "scientific debate is of enormous frustration."

I'm not interested in a political discussion. It's all about the science.

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

No, it hasn't been debunked. Not by a long shot.

As Politifact said, "Additionally, much of climate change deniers’ back-up evidence is cherry-picked or too simplistic to be meaningful."

ht tp://w ww.politifact.co m/truth-o-meter/article/2014/dec/17/climate-change-year-fact-checking/

Posted 559 days ago.

harryanderson

Climate science skeptics won’t support science because they know they can’t win that debate.

Like Heartland Institute head Joe Bast said with uncharacteristic candor: "We've won the public opinion debate, and we've won the political debate as well, but the scientific debate is a source of enormous frustration."

ht tp://ww w.nature.c om/news/2011/110727/full/475440a.html#close

That explains why they always try to turn it into a political discussion. They can’t win any other way, and they can’t change their minds.

In a rational, truth-seeking debate, we would discuss the relative accuracy of different temperature measurement methods. Instead, they wish to distract us from the science and talk about “the money duh” or “Lemmings begging for more govt.”

It’s all about the science, duh. And 97% of the most-published and most-cited scientists agree.

Posted 559 days ago.

Kunectdots

thegreek - Yep! Rather than lowering our standards of living, through Obama's reduction of input of CO2 into the environment, why not do what we can to discourage nations that are destroying the planets rainforests (the lungs of the Earth) from doing so?

I'm of the mindset that Obama's desire to impose higher energy costs upon the American people and it's industrial base, is little more than HIS attempt to bring the US to heel. He's stated that he doesn't consider our nation as being "exceptional", wanted to credit the Arab cultures for the scientific innovations he thinks they have been denied by civilization and is just a general open port for floodwaters of un-American ideological debris from around the planet. I consider him a traitor to our (our children's) posterity and believe he lied at every front for the sole purpose of crafting absolute power...and abusing it.

Posted 559 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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