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
4 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

Stunning that the other few political scientists on the Govt dole agree< I AM SHOCKED

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

AHHH another talking point PEER REVIEWED, so the other crooks agree?? how nice

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Harry you claim childish insult, but its YOU That calls others ANTI SCIENCE DENIERS> The FACTS are, the science is political, and its INACCURATE to boot. I know this is your pet topic but your push for a progressive Govt is obvious

Posted 197 days ago.

harryanderson

The New American isn't peer-reviewed. The study I cited is, which makes it much more credible in scientific circles.

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Yes, we’ve only been marinating 24/7 for two decades in increasingly hysterical media predictions and pronouncements about the coming AGW apocalypse — and the American public still hasn’t bought the false “consensus.” However, with the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) now engaged in another conference in Bonn, Germany, and the UN’s IPCC set to release a new series of reports, we can expect that the Cooked-up consensus results will be cited endlessly. Or, as Cook himself put it: “We beat the consensus drum often and regularly.”

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

In a May 22 follow-up article ("Climate 'Consensus' Con Game: Desperate Effort Before Release of UN Report") The New American reported on additional problems with the Cook study and cited a large and growing list of eminent climate scientists — including Nobel Prize recipients and scientists who served on the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) — who challenge the claim that there is any “scientific consensus” on climate change, or that “the science is settled” in favor of the Al Gore alarmist position.

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets take a look at 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 197 days ago.

harryanderson

Fact Number 1. In a survey published by the National Academy of Sciences, 97.4% (75 of 77) of respondents “who listed climate science as their area of expertise and who also have published more than 50% of their recent peer-reviewed papers on the subject of climate change. . . think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.”

Fact Number 2. Your childish insults upset neither the survey nor me.

Have a nice rest of the weekend. I will.

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

A common fraud that's what you are.

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Tell me why there is not mile thick ice sheets still sitting on the mov? It ain't my truck! Tell me what the alarmists have been right about? Oh they need more money to get accurate models LOLOL sure

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Harry for you to be blind to the politics of this issue tells me you are being dishonest yet again, once again you show your hard left bias. republican yeah right

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

The science IS politicized

Posted 197 days ago.

harryanderson

Once again, you try to turn it into a political debate because, as Bast said, the "scientific debate is of enormous frustration."

I'm not interested in a political discussion. It's all about the science.

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

And if it's not political why site POLITIfact? Here's a hint, if they have Fact in the name, it's doesn't mean they stick to them

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

You have the talking points down pat

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Ahhhh he drags out the Tampa bay times politifact again lololol. We know that they enthusuasticly endorsed Obama twice. A liberal rag and a BS FACT CHECKER NICE TRY

Posted 197 days ago.

harryanderson

No, it hasn't been debunked. Not by a long shot.

As Politifact said, "Additionally, much of climate change deniers’ back-up evidence is cherry-picked or too simplistic to be meaningful."

ht tp://w ww.politifact.co m/truth-o-meter/article/2014/dec/17/climate-change-year-fact-checking/

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Oddly enough 97% of foxes moat actively eating my chickens think I should let them out more

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

A better way to say it is 97%of those that derive their living from government funding think the government should get more money for failed predictions

Posted 197 days ago.

Stillhere

Sure is a good talking point but it's dishonest as he77

Posted 197 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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