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
24 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

Stillhere

Perhaps you can "school" us once again. lol

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

Care to discuss the margin of error yet or are you still ducking that one?

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

Mitt is as relevant to this discussion as ALGORE NO?

Posted 187 days ago.

harryanderson

Well, Mitt Romney has flipped (or is it flopped this time? I can't keep up with his reverses) on anthropogenic climate change again.

He gave a speech in Salt Lake City. The Deseret News reports "He also tackled climate change, describing himself as 'one of those Republicans' who believe the world is getting warmer and people contribute to the temperature changes and calling for 'real leadership' to deal with coal emissions."

Sheesh. I used to like Mitt. He sure looked better than Obama. Now, I don't know. Seems he can't be trusted. How can a guy trust Mitt when you don't know what his position will be tomorrow or the next day?

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

The press release is another attempt to sensationalize and create a perception that simply is not factual. Exaggerate for effect eh Monika?

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

The press release is another attempt to sensationalize and create a perception that simply is not factual. Exaggerate for effect eh Monika?

Posted 187 days ago.

Ohwiseone

That's called nit picking ! Anything to try and back up a misguided point !

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

Huh? Again you make no sense, fact is your claim is unsubstantiated

Posted 187 days ago.

moderation

Plus or minus. That is what I already said. And now you are saying it. That's great.And it was painless,huh?

Posted 187 days ago.

Ohwiseone

Serial liars and deniers Harry ! Does'nt matter what research you show , it wont be good enough !

Posted 187 days ago.

Stillhere

LOL you cannot show the earth is currently warming so how are you going to show the CO2 is causing it?

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

.1C to .05C is what they ADMIT to, the real margin is likely much higher.

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

SO even NASSA admits that the increase they claim is less than the margin of ERROR

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

Q. How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)? A. The GISS results are really estimates based on the available data. Accurate error estimates are hard to obtain. However, it is likely that the largest contribution to the margin of error is given by the temporal and spatial data gaps. That particular margin was estimated as follows: All computations were first made replacing the observed data by complete model data. Then the calculations were repeated after discarding model data where the corresponding observations were missing. Comparisons of the two results were used to obtain an estimate for that margin of error. Assuming that the other inaccuracies might about double that estimate yielded the error bars for global annual means drawn in this graph, i.e., for recent years the error bar for global annual means is about ±0.05°C, for years around 1900 it is about ±0.1°C. NASSA WEBSITE

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

Nasa and Noaa scientists report 2014 was 0.07F (0.04C) higher than previous records and the 38th consecutive year of above-average temperatures

HMMMMM .04C well now

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

Not your best effort Harry, you gave in to your snarky nature and really couldn't back up your claim. The snark comes when you are in a corner.

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

OK HARRY if its a statistical tie then DO TELL how they ranked them?

Posted 188 days ago.

Stillhere

Schooling me? lololo no lad, you were schooled about margins of errors and you refuse to answer the question as it blows your claim right out of the water.

Posted 188 days ago.

harryanderson

A statistical tie is not an absolute tie.

Now I'm done schooling you for now.

Posted 188 days ago.

harryanderson

100 is greater than 99.99, but not by much. It's a statistical tie. Very simple.

Posted 188 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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