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
42 minutes ago.
by Stillhere
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

According to your post, onlt 1 in 143 papers agrees with your extremist view. Again, the figures you cited.

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

In Cooks own words I anticipate there will be around 6000 “neutral” papers. So what I was thinking of doing next was a public crowd sourcing project where the public are given the list of neutral papers and links to the full paper — if they find evidence of an endorsement, they submit it to SkS (Skeptical Science)…. Thus over time, we would gradually process the 6000 neutral papers, converting many of them to endorsement papers — and make regular announcements like “hey the consensus just went from 99.75% to 99.8%, here are the latest papers with quotes.”

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Its important to know the source of ones facts so John Cooks activism is relevant, his methodology is also a source of great concern. I will expose these things like or lump it, matters little to me

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

97% of 32% is not consensus nor even a majority stop lying Harry, you don't like details do you? You want dishonest headlines that you can come in here an tout. Much like your giant lie about 2014 when confronted with fact you whine like a schoolgirl and run off.. We will look at the FACTS not your left wing talking points, whine as you will

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

When you found out the Cook study shows how extreme your position is, you start attacking its credibility instead of changing your mind.

You are the one who cited it, not me. I only referred to the statistics you cited. and those figures show that your position is shared by only one paper out of every 143.

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

OUCH

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

The definition Cook used to get his consensus was weak, the climatologists said. Only 41 out of the 11,944 published climate studies examined by Cook explicitly stated that mankind caused most of the warming since 1950 — meaning the actual consensus is 0.3 percent.

DAILY CALLER

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Cook’s 97 percent consensus claim was rebutted in subsequent analyses of his study. A paper by five leading climatologists published in the journal Science and Education last year found that Cook’s study misrepresented the views of most consensus scientists.

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Wrong again Harry, Facts are stubborn things, your 97% is a lie, 32% supported your position and that's if you believe a self employed cartoonist with an Alamist agenda classified them correctly, clearly he did not as I have demonstrated

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

Since you won't answer, I'll tell you how many supported you. It was 1 in 143.

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

I know you don't like details like margins of error Harry, your last lie was that 2014 was warmest on record, clearly a lie, but we will concentrate on this lie for now.

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets look a little deeper into Cook and his methodology

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets look a little deeper into Cook and his methodology

Posted 170 days ago.

Stillhere

Repeating you lie does not make it true, but that's all ya got I understand

Posted 170 days ago.

harryanderson

How many supported you?

Posted 170 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 170 days ago.

Stillhere

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

Posted 170 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 170 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 170 days ago.

Stillhere

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

Posted 170 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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