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
6 days ago.
by Kunectdots
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

I was told to find my own source, and I did. I found the best one—the paper on which NASA based its press release. There is no controversy there.

The authors conclude, “The three warmest years in the GISTEMP analysis, 2014, 2010, and 2005 in that order, can be considered to be in a statistical tie because of several sources of uncertainty, the largest source being incomplete spatial coverage of the data. Similarly the next warmest years in our analysis, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006, 2007, 2009 and 2013, can be taken as a statistical tie for the 4th through the 10th in our analysis. The 15 warmest years all occurred since 1998 .”

I don’t mind being transparent about my sources. Here it is. ht tp://ww w.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2015/20150116_Temperature2014.pdf

Posted 159 days ago.

Stillhere

Anyone that clings to the 97% distortion should know about cherry picking!

Posted 159 days ago.

Stillhere

Odd how anything that casts doubt on your view of global warming is "cherry picked", that's a vague but handy little way of trying to discredit facts you don't like.

Posted 159 days ago.

Stillhere

If you are not bright enough to find the quote I used by a simple copy and paste, I don't hold out much hope for you giving a very learned opinion.

Posted 159 days ago.

harryanderson

If you expect me to find my own source, I have an excellent one in mind. It comes from scientists.

I have a lot of work to do today. I'll try to get back this evening to check out your source or to give my opinion based on the scientific literature.

Posted 159 days ago.

harryanderson

You said we should be "reading the fine print." I'm willing to do so, if you'll say where the fine print can be found. I suspect your quote is cherry-picked. Your statements usually are.

Posted 159 days ago.

harryanderson

You challenged me to respond to your quote. How can I respond properly if I have to guess among "many places"?

Posted 159 days ago.

harryanderson

Where did you get that quote? It interests me.

Posted 159 days ago.

Stillhere

The story appears in many places not hard to find

Posted 159 days ago.

moderation

dot com

Posted 160 days ago.

moderation

Try this Harry. ens-newswire****

Posted 160 days ago.

harryanderson

Stillhere, you posted,

"Yet the Nasa press release failed to mention this, as well as the fact that the alleged ‘record’ amounted to an increase over 2010, the previous ‘warmest year’, of just two-hundredths of a degree – or 0.02C. The margin of error is said by scientists to be approximately 0.1C – several times as much."

I'd like to check this out. I'm sure those aren't your words. From where did you lift that quote?

Posted 160 days ago.

moderation

Gettin' dinner together for my wife,yak later!

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

She said MIGHT, that's true but does the fact that she seems to justify it not a cause for concern for you?

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

62% chance they are dead wrong by their OWN admission.

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

When a govt agency official ADMITS to exaggeration to garner funding, one would think a rational person would perk up a little.

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

Big Business/Big Government is there a distinct difference?

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

Well I don't trust Big Business either nor do I trust GOVT which IS BIG BUSINESS.

Posted 160 days ago.

moderation

Monica is talking funding.She said"might".Maybe there was deception,maybe not. The point is,the authors stand by their word.There were fluctuations in temperatures all over the earth. There were many different instruments measuring land, water, and atmosphere, in muchos locations.The average was a small change, as one would expect. However, it is a fact,that it doesn't take much chage in land temperature,or rainfall or the warming or cooling of oceans currents to affect the behaviors of organisms.I don't trust 'big business'

Posted 160 days ago.

Stillhere

If not we will allow amateur hour and let the moron post uncorrected

Posted 160 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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