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
3 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

So you agree that funding can taint information?

Posted 62 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 62 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 62 days ago.

Kendall78

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

Posted 62 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 62 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 62 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 62 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

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

Cards on the table.

Posted 62 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 62 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 62 days ago.

harryanderson

But your statement is not factual, since you left out the key qualifying word "climate."

So, Tiredofit, you still haven't shown where I said "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming."

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

So, to be clear. I have retracted the "all climate scientists" statement. I stand by my "most expert climate scientists" statement until someone proves it wrong.

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

You mislead in two ways, Tiredofit, in going so far back.

First, I later amended my statements to say "most expert" or "most published." I realized that I couldn't prove "all climate scientists."

Second, your recent post claims I said "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming." Odd that you were quick to focus on the word "all," and omitted the word "climate."

So even though I later amended my statement, you still mislead. I was clearly referring to "climate scientists," not "scientists."

Tsk. Tsk.

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Harry page 80 and I quote "I’ll leave it to the 97% of all climate scientists who agree that mankind’s activities are causing climate change" Not only did you say it you also mislead by saying 97% of ALL climate scientists. Tsk. Tsk

Posted 62 days ago.

Tiredofit

Ok which study are you basing your claim on?

Posted 62 days ago.

harryanderson

Tiredofit,

Where did I say "97% of scientists believe in man made global warming"?

Posted 63 days ago.

Kendall78

So in the end, there isn't any false claim from those that actually read the study. Out of roughly 3,822 peer reviewed studies on global warming that gave a cause to it, about 3,707 said it was due to man. Only 115 said it was something else or admitted they didn't know.

Posted 63 days ago.

Kendall78

From the study: "Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."

Take note that the study itself states they only counted the abstracts that gave a position on Global Warming. And not very shocking, those scientists that gave a position overwhelmingly said man was to be blamed.

To make the pill more bitter, only 3% of scientists that gave an opinion said it wasn't man or wasn't sure...only 3%.

Out of the entirety of the whole study, 64% of the papers gave no opinion at all on the cause. They just show there is global warming and don't say why it's happening.

Posted 63 days ago.

Kendall78

"By your own admission, its 97 percent who agreed with the minority of 32 percent that made that claim."

Actually, now you are making false claims. Again, the original researchers looked at peer reviewed papers. They weeded out any papers that didn't have anything to do with the topic of climate change. This makes sense because why would you want to include studies on topics other than climate change if that is what you are checking on.

From those papers, that is where they got their number. They never hid their info and obviously you never checked their research out and had to rely on an opinion piece from the WSJ instead.

Posted 63 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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