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 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

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 145 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 145 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 145 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 145 days ago.

harryanderson

Only 1 of 143 rejected the consensus.

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

Picking on typos in your desperation, huh?

Posted 145 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 145 days ago.

Stillhere

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

Posted 145 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 145 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 145 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 145 days ago.

Stillhere

But there are more Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Posted 145 days ago.

harryanderson

The consensus is robust. Like stillhere wrote, of 12,000 papers reviewed, only 1 out of every 143 rejected it. Clearly, the climate scientists who reject it are a tiny band of extremists.

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

Why would these scientists say that their papers were misrepresented??? Do they work for the oil companies or what? Clearly they are credentialed enough to be INCLUDED to start with.

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

Well Harry have you ran off again?

Posted 145 days ago.

Ohwiseone

The troll doesn't like inconvenient truths ! It show it for what it is ! A TROLL !! Not only that but a lying troll to boot !

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

What????? Not accurate according to the author, what does he know anyway?

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

What????? Not accurate according to the author, what does he know anyway?

Posted 145 days ago.

Stillhere

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Posted 145 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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