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
2 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

harryanderson

How many supported you?

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

OK if you only include people that agree with you, you should have hit 100% but sorry HARRY those are not the facts

32% supported you 67% did NOT, Just the facts

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

"I'm not a climatologist or a scientist but a self employed cartoonist" - John Cook, Skeptical Science

Posted 117 days ago.

harryanderson

Of course, that 0.7% includes those papers who expressed no opinion. If you include only those who gave an opinion, the percentage of papers that agree with you goes all the way up to 2.4%.

Does that make you feel more validated? After all, 2.4% is three times 0.7%. You're moving up!

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

the actual number of studies in the Cook sampling that can be said to endorse the position that human activity is responsible for most of the experienced global warming is — get ready for this (drum roll …) — sixty-five. Yes, 65, or around half a percent, not 97 percent! And this miniscule number of strong endorsers is actually less than the number of skeptical scientific papers included in the Cook study.

NEW AMERICAN

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

Many papers were misclassified to even get to 32% per the authors

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

97% of 32% is NOT consensus and you know it, how nice you ignore the vast majority that DID NOT SUPPORT YOUR VIEW

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

67% failed to endorse AGW these are the facts Harry stop being dishonest

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

“Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree:#climate change is real, man-made and dangerous,” President Barack Obama tweeted last Thursday, May 16

This is a lie

Posted 117 days ago.

harryanderson

Less than one percent rejected the consensus. You wrote it yourself. If I was such a tiny minority, I'd be inclined to reevaluate my position.

I'm betting you won't. Can't, I mean.

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

97% of the 32% is hardly consensus, the VAST MAJORITY 67% failed to endorse AGW and that dear readers is a fact

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

97% of the 32% is hardly consensus, the VAST MAJORITY 67% failed to endorse AGW and that dear readers is a fact

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

67% of the abstracts failed to endorse AGW, of the 32 % classified by Climate activists as endorsing, many were misclassified by the AUTHORS huh?

Posted 117 days ago.

harryanderson

Only 1 of 143 rejected the consensus.

Posted 117 days ago.

harryanderson

Picking on typos in your desperation, huh?

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

Just like Harry said

harryanderson

As you said, 0.7% of those studied, or 1 out of every 143, did not reject global warming. Period.

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

WOW Harry you are reduced to that? I hope you recover soon.

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

Dr. Scafetta, your paper 'Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses and quantifies AGW as 50+%"

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Scafetta: "Cook et al. (2013) is based on a strawman argument because it does not correctly define the IPCC AGW theory, which is NOT that human emissions have contributed 50%+ of the global warming since 1900 but that almost 90-100% of the observed global warming was induced by human emission.

What my papers say is that the IPCC view is erroneous because about 40-70% of the global warming observed from 1900 to 2000 was induced by the sun. This implies that the true climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling is likely around 1.5 C or less, and that the 21st century projections must be reduced by at least a factor of 2 or more. Of that the sun contributed (more or less) as much as the anthropogenic forcings.

HMMMMMMM more truth

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

You cannot get around that fact Harry, and why are all these Scientists now saying their work was MISRPRESENTED by the Warming activist John Cook?

Posted 117 days ago.

Stillhere

The consensus IS CLEAR you are correct of the 12000 papers reviewed by agenda driven non scientists, 67% DO NOT support the theory of AGW FACT

Posted 117 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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