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
21 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

Kendall78

Since you bring up Cook; "he majored in solar physics in his post-grad honours year. He is not a climate scientist. Consequently, the science presented on Skeptical Science is not his own but taken directly from the peer reviewed scientific literature. To those seeking to refute the science presented, one needs to address the peer reviewed papers where the science comes from. There is no funding to maintain Skeptical Science other than ****** donations - it's run at personal expense. John Cook has no affiliations with any organisations or political groups."

This is from his own website so it seems he is pretty straight forward with his site's position on science.

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

Skeptical Science was merely for reference. If you believe information posted there or not, let it be because the science is good or bad...not because of the person who put it there.

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

"So you agree that funding can taint information?"

I've never gave a agree or disagree on the topic. Others have but I rather let the science speak for itself.

My mentioning Legates affiliations was strictly for those that think it's more about politics than science.

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

Great source

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

About Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour".

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

About Skeptical Science

This site was created by John Cook. I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist and web programmer by trade. I did a Physics degree at the University of Queensland and while I achieved First Class Honours and could've continued onto a PhD, I instead quit academia and became a professional scrawler. Too much doodling in lectures, I think. Nevertheless, I've pursued a keen interest in science and if anything, found my curiosity about how the world works increased once I wasn't forced to study for impending exams.

My interest in global warming began when I drew a cartoon spoof of the TV show 24 that wondered what Jack Bauer would do if Al Gore was President and global warming was the "threat du jour".

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

Cook is an activist, hardly a neutral observer.

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

Errrrrrrr you do know john cook runs the supposed skeptical scientist website right Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW" Debunked New American.

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you agree that funding can taint information?

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

So you agree that funding can taint information?

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

For those that thinks this is more about politics than science...did you know that Dr. Legates is affiliated with NCPA? And did you know that NCPA is funded by Exxon?

Now one who believes this is all about money and politics should find Legates opinions to highly skeptical.

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

Sounds like Dr. David Legates disagrees in how the original researches counted up the abstracts.

So I guess the question is this, what makes David Legates's count better than the people that did the original research....other than that you like what he said.

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

For reference: w w w.skepticalscience.c om/97-percent-consensus-discredited.h tm

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

Cook?????e, David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the same papers as did Mr. Cook and found "only 41 papers—0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent—had been found to endorse" the claim that human activity is causing most of the current warming. Elsewhere, climate scientists including Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, protested that Mr. Cook ignored or misrepresented their work.

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

The doran Zimmerman study? The "97 percent" figure in the Zimmerman/Doran survey represents the views of only 79 respondents who listed climate science as an area of expertise and said they published more than half of their recent peer-reviewed papers on climate change. Seventy-nine scientists—of the 3,146 who responded to the survey—does not a consensus make.

Posted 56 days ago.

Kendall78

"Ok which study are you basing your claim on?"

The one that the WSJ is talking about. Haven't you looked at it before now?

Posted 56 days ago.

harryanderson

Later. It's time to go support the benefactors of government largesse.

Posted 56 days ago.

harryanderson

Whom do you consider most authoritative on the subject, Tiredofit? Whose opinions matter to you?

Cards on the table.

Posted 56 days ago.

harryanderson

I have never claimed that "only climate scientists (sic) opinions matter."

But I do consider climate scientists, and especially the most expert, most published and most reviewed climate scientists, to be most credible on the subject.

Posted 56 days ago.

Tiredofit

Oh come now harry, are you really gpu g there? You have claimed also that only climate scientists opinions matter on the subject. That's a straw you are grasping at.

Posted 56 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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