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
1 hour ago.
by Ohwiseone
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

You are talking about 75 people, who in the OPINON of COOK (noted activist) and his team, supported man made global warming.

Posted 228 days ago.

Stillhere

Well of course you were not referring to ALL scientists, just the ones that agree with your position. You seen to ignore the 66% plus that didn't support your position however. Rational Discussion, harldy

Posted 228 days ago.

harryanderson

You seem confused about what I wrote a few hours ago. I said nothing about “a consensus of scientist (sic) who agree that man is causing catastrophic changes in the climate.”

Perhaps it would be helpful to you if I repeated my words. I wrote: 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.”

My words should be clear. I wasn’t referring to “scientist(s)” or “all scientists.”

You’re also confused about my citation.

Stop distorting what I write. It prevents rational discussion.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

You, like Cook, wish to present a consensus of scientist who agree that man is causing catastrophic changes in the climate, but you do it by false pretense.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Thanks for agreeing with my post, now explain if 66.4% stated NO POSITION, how 97% could support AGW???

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Thanks for agreeing with my post, now explain if 66.4% stated NO POSITION, how 97% could support AGW???

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Of course it is

Posted 229 days ago.

harryanderson

"...to be saying 97% of all scientists agree on this is absurd."

I agree with that statement. Of course, that's not what I said.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

I really love it when you bring up the 97% lie, I could debunk it all day long and enjoy every minute of it THANKS

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

But if you are fond of Joe Bast then take this quote

This is one of the big unsolved scientific issues of our day, and for politicians to be saying 97 percent of all scientists agree on this is absurd.”

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

But if you would like to post a link that is not a leftist one on that quote I will look at it.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

I don't know who Joe Bast is nor do I care, he doesn't speak for me any more than ALGORE speaks for you.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

You walked into that one HARRY ;)

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Thanks for agreeing with my post, now explain if 66.4% stated NO POSITION, how 97% could support AGW???

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW,

More fraud on your part, if you believe the .07% you must believe the 66.4 figure as well

Posted 229 days ago.

harryanderson

Precisely, Stillhere,

Like you said yourself, only "0.7 per cent rejected AGW." That's why the scientific debate frustrates Joe Bast.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

More on Harrys 97% lie

From the 11 994 papers, 32.6 per cent endorsed AGW, 66.4 per cent stated no position on AGW, 0.7 per cent rejected AGW and in 0.3 per cent of papers, the authors said the cause of global warming was uncertain.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Greek, you have to understand that Harry and his ilk have no interest in debate, its a left wing agenda.

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

Lets take a look at what Monika Kopacz the head of the NOAA climate project has to say

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

Posted 229 days ago.

Stillhere

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

Posted 229 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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