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
5 days ago.
by mythravere
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

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

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 62 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 62 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 62 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 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry how old is the earth?

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

All?. No more like 32%

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Cook is an activist.

Posted 62 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 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Big government is funneling BILLIONS into these anti capitalist organizations, so I would not call govt unfriendly to them.

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

Back to Cook's study. Watts says Cook lied. That article was published May 27, 2013.

Two months later, in a study to which I linked, Cook responded to Watts' charges. Cook asked the authors to rate their own papers. The self-ratings confirmed the 97% consensus.

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Do you beleive that the world was created in 6 days by an omnipotent being? These things are appropriate questions if one is to believe on current science as they are key to the research.

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

It's not what scientists I believe harry, it's what conclusions I am skeptical of, for instance, do you beleive the earth is millions of years old?

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, I'd say the important government figures who have harassed the scientists are a prime example of the out-of-control, evil big government you're always talking about.

Would you agree, Tiredofit?

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, it's a wonder ANY climate scientists would come out in favor of global warming given how Congressional committees, e-mail hackers, and powerful politicians like Cucinelli and Monkton have harassed and tried to discredit them.

I wonder how many climate scientists who know AGW is real fear speaking up.

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

In fact, it's ridiculous to consider the opinions of those who express no opinion.

Remember the search terms used to select the papers. The authors searched for "global warming" and "global climate change." Those terms could be used in a large variety of contexts. However, our discussion doesn't involve all those contexts; here, we argue whether global warming is anthropogenic.

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

I see no lie in Cook's study. The authors never claimed to study papers that expressed no opinion. Here's the 2nd paragraph of the original press release, linked to by Watts:

" The study is the most comprehensive yet and identified 4000 summaries, otherwise known as abstracts, from papers published in the past 21 years that stated a position on the cause of recent global warming – 97 per cent of these endorsed the consensus that we are seeing man-made, or anthropogenic, global warming (AGW)."

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

Since you say we all pick what science to believe, Tiredofit--

Which scientists do you believe on this issue.

Posted 62 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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