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
16 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

Btw, it was YOU who brought your religion to this forum and made it fair game

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

So,, how is the scientific consensus that denies your religion any less valid than the one you claim on AGW? Do tell.

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

SO slave to science Harry, do you believe it NOW????? we have consensus>

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent. Well I guess not 100% LOL

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Scientists say man evolved from the sea Harry, do ya believe them? 100% believe that so it must be so, right Harry?

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

Climate Change Killed Neandertals, Study Says. How bout this Harry?

Posted 85 days ago.

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 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

And you call me a denier

Posted 85 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 85 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 85 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 85 days ago.

harryanderson

Less than one percent, as Anthony Watts admitted.

The consensus stands.

Posted 85 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 85 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 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 85 days ago.

Tiredofit

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

Posted 85 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 85 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 85 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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