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
23 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

But there are more Dr. Idso, your paper 'Ultra-enhanced spring branch growth in CO2-enriched trees: can it alter the phase of the atmosphere’s seasonal CO2 cycle?' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Implicitly endorsing AGW without minimizing it".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Idso: "That is not an accurate representation of my paper. The papers examined how the rise in atmospheric CO2 could be inducing a phase advance in the spring portion of the atmosphere's seasonal CO2 cycle. Other literature had previously claimed a measured advance was due to rising temperatures, but we showed that it was quite likely the rise in atmospheric CO2 itself was responsible for the lion's share of the change. It would be incorrect to claim that our paper was an endorsement of CO2-induced global warming."

Posted 140 days ago.

harryanderson

The consensus is robust. Like stillhere wrote, of 12,000 papers reviewed, only 1 out of every 143 rejected it. Clearly, the climate scientists who reject it are a tiny band of extremists.

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Why would these scientists say that their papers were misrepresented??? Do they work for the oil companies or what? Clearly they are credentialed enough to be INCLUDED to start with.

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Well Harry have you ran off again?

Posted 140 days ago.

Ohwiseone

The troll doesn't like inconvenient truths ! It show it for what it is ! A TROLL !! Not only that but a lying troll to boot !

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Dr. Carlin, your paper 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as; "Explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Carlin: "No, if Cook et al's paper classifies my paper, 'A Multidisciplinary, Science-Based Approach to the Economics of Climate Change' as "explicitly endorses AGW but does not quantify or minimize," nothing could be further from either my intent or the contents of my paper. I did not explicitly or even implicitly endorse AGW and did quantify my skepticism concerning AGW. Both the paper and the abstract make this clear.

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

What????? Not accurate according to the author, what does he know anyway?

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

What????? Not accurate according to the author, what does he know anyway?

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Dr. Morner, your paper 'Estimating future sea level changes from past records' is categorized by Cook et al. (2013) as having; "No Position on AGW".

Is this an accurate representation of your paper?

Morner: "Certainly not correct and certainly misleading. The paper is strongly against AGW, and documents its absence in the sea level observational facts. Also, it invalidates the mode of sea level handling by the IPCC."

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Were they classified correctly by the man with an agenda??? lets see what a few scientists whos work was part of the survey have to say shall we?

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Facts are Facts HARRY even COOK, a radical enviromarixist had to admit that 67% of his hand picked papers DID NOT SUPPORT HIS THEORY

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

You are confused at what lie you are attempting to convey harry, again I ask, have you had some medical episode??? You are really slipping these days.

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

harryanderson

As you said, 0.7% of those studied, or 1 out of every 143, DID NOT reject global warming. Period.

Emphisis added for hilarity

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

harryanderson

As you said, 0.7% of those studied, or 1 out of every 143, did not reject global warming. Period.

OK Ill believe that on LOLOLOLOLO

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

of the MINORITY of papers that supposedly DO endorse it, how many different authors are there??? DO YOU KNOW?

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

True of false

Posted 140 days ago.

Stillhere

Oh boy lets have some fun Harry,

Facts are facts Harry and you are lying about them, 67% of those papers studied by a known CLimate activist do NOT ENDORSE AGW

Posted 140 days ago.

harryanderson

you said so yourself. you have taken yourself to the woodshed.

Posted 140 days ago.

harryanderson

I wrote that wrong. Only one 1 in 143 reject the consensus position.

Posted 140 days ago.

harryanderson

As you said, 0.7% of those studied, or 1 out of every 143, did not reject global warming. Period.

Posted 140 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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