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
4 hours ago.
by Kendall78
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

Tiredofit

Scientists can study Earth’s climate as far back as 800,000 years by drilling core samples from deep underneath the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica, believe this Harry?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

Thanks for showing you hypocrisy again, and demonstrating blind faith in science when it suits you.

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

And you call me a denier

Posted 53 days ago.

harryanderson

Thanks for raising this issue, Tiredofit, and once again confirming that only a tiny minority of scientists reject AGW.

The more you post and we investigate, the more robust the consensus becomes.

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's a lie, 97% of those carefully selected papers that's allready agreed does not a connsus make, it may stand in your little world, but not in the world of fact.

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

So as you avoid the obvious hypocrisy in your argument, I will close with this. If you don't believe science when they tell you how old the earth is, where man came from, the evolution of plant and animal life, why do you believe the theory of agw.

Posted 53 days ago.

harryanderson

Less than one percent, as Anthony Watts admitted.

The consensus stands.

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

If we are to assume that science is to be believed and anyone who is skeptical is a knuckle dragging mouth breather, are you views of science not relevant?

Posted 53 days ago.

harryanderson

Again, according to Cook, et. al, as quoted by Watts, less than one percent of the 12,000 endorse your views.

That's why, as Joe Bast said, "the scientific debate is of enormous frustration to (you)."

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

If we are to discuss adaptation to the dreaded fallout of global warming, is evolution relevant?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

If we are to understand historical climate data, isn't the age of the planet also relevant?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

Why are you afraid to just say it? It's scientific fact right?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

If we are to discuss tree ring date and ice core data, wouldn't the age of the planet seem relevant?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

So with that criteria, what sort of papers and authors will be excluded? Here’s a short, but by no means complete, checklist of papers and author opinions Cooks sampling method will likely miss:

Papers/authors that don’t use those two phrases cook deems important because they (or the journal) feel it politicizes or polarizes the paper. Papers/authors that study other natural variation effects on climate, such as ENSO, solar influences, aerosol influences, volcanic influences, etc. that are only studying those effects and don’t use the terms Cook deems important. Papers/authors that study issues, biases, adjustments of datasets that are only studying those datasets and nuances and don’t use the terms Cook deems important. Papers that study climate models that deal with the methods and performance, and don’t use the terms Cook deems important.

Posted 53 days ago.

harryanderson

And of course you, Tiredofit, try to deflect attention. You refuse to answer my relevant question and demand I answer an irrelevant question.

I ask these questions knowing full well you won't answer. But your avoidance tells the reader a lot.

BTW: I'd be glad to discuss my views on the origin of the universe. However, since that isn't relevant to this discussion and my time is limited, I cannot do so here.

Do you want to start a thread about it? Or should I?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry how old is the earth?

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

All?. No more like 32%

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

Cook is an activist.

Posted 53 days ago.

harryanderson

And here's the real kicker. This quote was published by Watts HIMSELF. He got it from Cook's original press release.

"From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain."

Read it again. Less than one percent of the 12,000 papers "rejected AGW."

By the way, Tiredofit. Less than one percent of all the papers endorse your view.

Posted 53 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you decline to show your own anti science bias, deny peter.

Posted 53 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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