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 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

And just how do you propose to do that

Posted 78 days ago.

harryanderson

That's not true. I never said there was no uncertainty. I said over 97% of the most expert climate scientists, determined by peer-reviewed publications and citations, agree with the IPCC.

Would you like to change that percentage? It can be done.

Posted 78 days ago.

Tiredofit

According to you and your president there is no uncertainty.

Posted 78 days ago.

harryanderson

So how do we reduce the uncertainty?

Posted 78 days ago.

Tiredofit

The acceptance of exaggerating by the NOAA climate program director tells me a lot. It's clearly accepted as she said to gain funding. Peer review. Ha. So you mean all the folks on the money train agree they like the ride?

Posted 78 days ago.

harryanderson

I also agree that the science has been exaggerated in the non-scientific, popular press. But has it been exaggerated in peer-reviewed publications? Are you interested in conducting further research to clear this matter up?

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

“He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated.”

I agree with you, Tiredofit. Climate science has uncertainties, particularly with respect to predictions. Since we agree on this, are you interested in conducting further research to reduce the uncertainty?

Posted 79 days ago.

Tiredofit

And to be clear its not about science NOR politics, ITS A RELIGON

Posted 79 days ago.

Tiredofit

Lying is lying but to the true believer, its ok if its for the greater good. EH fraud?

Posted 79 days ago.

Tiredofit

Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. It is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians’ — and readers’ — attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today’s world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

MONIKA KOPACZ Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences Harvard University

Cambridge, Mass. NOAA CLIMATE PROJECT MANAGER

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

Clarification. The last paragraph should read: That’s why the counter climate change movement doesn’t want to reduce the scientific uncertainty—doubt allows them to advance their political agenda. Like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, doubt is their product.

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

These climate scientists have bravely continued to publish the results of their research in the face of persecution from powerful politicians like Ken Cuccinelli and Lord Monkton.

Tiredofit said “it’s a political agenda, not a scientific discussion.” Climate scientist Michael Mann understands how Tiredofit feels. Mann wrote, “Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers.”

That’s why they don’t want to reduce the scientific uncertainty—doubt allows them to advance their political agenda. Like their predecessors in the tobacco industry, doubt is their product.

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

Attacks on science and scientists are an effort to advance a political agenda, not an effort to better understand science or the risks it uncovers.

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

There is a lot of cultural warfare, politics, and hype around this issue.

Despite all the sensationalism and politics, 97.4% of the 200 most expert climate scientists, meaning those who have most researched, most subjected their work to peer review, and been most cited by other climate scientists, “% “fully agree…anthropogenic greenhouse gases have been responsible for ‘most’ of the ‘unequivocal’ warming of the Earth’s average global temperature over the second half of the 20th century.”

Sensationalism gets the attention of those who consider it a political, rather than scientific, issue. For example, look how the political types keep sensationalizing the phony “Climategate” scandal, despite the fact that at least 8 investigations have concluded that the East Anglia e-mails didn’t undermine the climate scientists’ work.

We need to drop the politics. It’s an engineering problem with an engineering solution.

Posted 79 days ago.

harryanderson

"only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention."

That's quite an indictment of both politicians and the average reader.

Posted 79 days ago.

Bill Clinton's lies have been back in the news. What a dilemma to decide who is the bigger liar, him or obama.

Which is the larger whopper? "I didn't have ### with that woman, not a single time." Or..."if you like your healthcare, you can keep your healthcare" He will probably out lie even that big one tonighht.

Before you start on WMD, remember all the democrats who said it first. And it is recorded for posterity..

Posted 79 days ago.

Tiredofit

t is no secret that a lot of climate-change research is subject to opinion, that climate models sometimes disagree even on the signs of the future changes (e.g. drier vs. wetter future climate). The problem is, only sensational exaggeration makes the kind of story that will get politicians' - and readers' - attention. So, yes, climate scientists might exaggerate, but in today's world, this is the only way to assure any political action and thus more federal financing to reduce the scientific uncertainty.

MONIKA KOPEK NOAA CLIMATE PROJECT

Posted 79 days ago.

Tiredofit

"Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012"

In case you are struggling with the math, that means that they believe Global Warming could kill three quarters of the world's population in the next five years. And the media treats these people with total respect, and we skeptics are considered loony? It appears that the editors of the Canadian have taken NOAA climate research Steven Schneider at his word:

We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts we have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.

Posted 79 days ago.

Tomorow night you can spend your time defending your socialist leaning idol. His words mean nothing. The polls show that many disillusioned voters know that now.

As usual, I won't waste my time watching him, but I will read the fairy tale words. Just to be informed. What a joke he is.

Posted 80 days ago.

That's correct. Bush is too classy to criticize obama's exccessive golf. One of Bush's major faults is being too nice. No one can ,with any credibility, accuse obama of being guilty of that.

Your points are quite unimpressive. And you don't know about the expensive trips to Martha's Vinland, Hawaii,and foreign countries,several times travelling in separate expensive wasteful planes? Grossly uninformed.

It would be enlightening for you compare those costs to the Bush trips to his ranch where he did his presidential work.

Posted 80 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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