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

Mind dear reader this is only data from one supposed study by radical climate activist not to be confused with the positions of science in general, clearly you can see how dishonest HARRY and his ilk are being with THIER claims

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

This is where you are deliberately dishonest, talk about a propaganda campaign designed to film flam, pot meet kettle

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

The vast majority ( call it consensus) did NOT SUPPORT YOUR THEORY OF AGW PERIOD!!!!!

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

The consensus is a nil hypothesis! 97% of 32 % does not equate to a majority

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

What is not factual about that statement HARRY?

LololLOLOL. Cannot bring yourself to admit the truth can you?

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

Read again for understanding this time HARRY Stillhere Let's just say that 67% of peer reviewed experts either denied or did not endorse the theory of man made global warming, correct?

Posted 55 minutes ago.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

Your post shows the vast difference between the climate scientists who study the issue and the gullible people who have been flim-flammed by the propaganda campaign referenced at the beginning of this thread.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

Your statement is factual. Only one out of every 143 papers on global warming reject it.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

You have unwittingly shown how extreme the "reject AGW" scientists are.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

So those who "reject AGW" are a small number of outliers whose views disagree with the consensus.

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

According to your own figures and your own reasoning, only one paper of every 143 agrees with you.

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

my statement is absolutely factual do you DENY that

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

Let's just say that 67% of peer reviewed experts either denied or did not endorse the theory of man made global warming, correct?

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

So you are deliberately misleading ( yeah lying).

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

So you are deliberately misleading ( yeah lying).

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

So you are deliberately misleading ( yeah lying).

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

The vast majority of the papers reviewed DID NOT ENDORSE THE THEORY OF MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING, my statement is also true right HARRY

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

Lol that's hardly 97% of scientists

Posted 146 days ago.

harryanderson

Owiseone's post is accurate. 97% of those who took a position agreed.

So is yours. You say that only "32.6% endorsed it. And the way you also say, "0.7% rejected AGW."

Seven-tenths of a percent is 1/143. So you've provided further evidence of the consensus by stating that only one paper of 143 agrees with your position by "rejecting AGW."

And therein lies the rub. Scientists who study the issue overwhelmingly disagree with the deniers, even as the deniers have managed to hoodwink many who lack the expertise to make a judgment.

Posted 146 days ago.

Stillhere

Here’s the genesis of the lie. When you take a result of 32.6% of all papers that accept AGW, ignoring the 66% that don’t, and twist that into 97%, excluding any mention of that original value in your media reports, there’s nothing else to call it – a lie of presidential proportions.

Posted 146 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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