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
7 hours ago.
by mythravere
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

Tiredofit

The number stems from a 2008 master’s thesis by student Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at the University of Illinois, under the guidance of Peter Doran, an associate professor of Earth and environmental sciences. The two researchers obtained their results by conducting a survey of 10,257 Earth scientists. The survey results must have deeply disappointed the researchers — in the end, they chose to highlight the views of a subgroup of just 77 scientists, 75 of whom thought humans contributed to climate change. The ratio 75/77 produces the 97% figure that pundits now tout.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

A March 2008 canvas of 51,000 Canadian scientists with the Association of Professional Engineers, Geologists and Geophysics of Alberta (APEGGA) found that although 99% of 1,077 replies believe climate is changing, 68% disagreed with the statement that “…the debate on the scientific causes of recent climate change is settled.” Only 26% of them attributed global warming to “human activity like burning fossil fuels.” Regarding these results, APEGGA’s executive director, Neil Windsor, commented, “We’re not surprised at all. There is no clear consensus of scientists that we know of.”

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

A 2010 survey of media broadcast meteorologists conducted by the George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication found that 63% of 571 who responded believe global warming is mostly caused by natural, not human, causes. Those polled included members of the American Meteorological Society (AMS) and the National Weather Association.

A more recent 2012 survey published by the AMS found that only one in four respondents agreed with UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims that humans are primarily responsible for recent warming. And while 89% believe that global warming is occurring, only 30% said they were very worried.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

from FORBES

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

the survey was sent to over 10,000 scientists, there were actually only 79 responses from climatologists, so the 97% figure represented just 75 individuals.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

2009> sorta before warming stopped isn't it, OK if that is your source. Were either of these fine people climatologists?

Posted 92 days ago.

harryanderson

Sure, Tiredofit, sure.

I’ll present some more evidence you refuse consider because it’s scientific, not political.

A 2009 study by Peter T. Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman was published by the American Geophysical Union. The researchers sent questionnaires to 10,257 scientists from a wide range of disciplines. 3146 responded.

Of all respondents, 82% agreed with this statement: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?"

Of those “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,” 97.4% agreed.

htt p://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf

That’s the second time I’ve cited evidence to back up my statement.

Your turn, Mr. Political Agenda.

I ask again. Are you now willing to consider scientific evidence?

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

And you quote if from David Evans.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

I don't have to provide a source for the 97 percent quote, its up to those that use it.

Posted 92 days ago.

Kendall78

"Where does the 97 percent come from? Where did you get that figure?"

Add a little of this quote, "The whole idea that carbon dioxide is the main cause of the recent global warming is based on a guess that was proved false by empirical evidence during the 1990s."

And the result is: Where does the empirical evidence come from? Where did you get that information?

Posted 92 days ago.

Kendall78

You mean our President. You are an American citizen correct?

Also Harry gave you the information so you can read (shocking new breathrough in research you might want to try) and come up with your own educated opinion instead of the blind as abat ones you typically create out of nothing.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

Maybe you know where all the Global Warming zealots got the 97 percent figure, even your president has cited the number.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

Kendall shouldn't you be studying BE verbs and their use so you don't make another ridiculous statement>? I was asking Harry since he is the one that stated the 97 Percent figure. Thanks

Posted 92 days ago.

Kendall78

I think if you answer around half of the questions directed at you in the last few weeks, maybe Harry or others might tell you where the info comes from. Oh wait..they already did but you won't read anything that goes against what you believe in.

Posted 92 days ago.

Tiredofit

Where does the 97 percent come from? Where did you get that figure?

Posted 92 days ago.

Kendall78

I thought this was an interesting news story that talked about "marine ice sheet instability": w w w.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25729750

Posted 92 days ago.

harryanderson

“Don't want to defend your 97% now do ya harry?”

Earlier this afternoon, I cited a study that backs up my comment.

I can cite more, but it might be pointless, since you said before, Tiredofit, that “it’s a political (agenda), not a scientific discussion.” I see no sense in citing scientific work to someone who states that science has no relevance to the topic.

You may have changed your mind. It seems you now want to discuss scientists’ conclusions.

Have you become willing to consider scientific evidence? If you are, we have a basis for discussing scientists’ work.

Posted 92 days ago.

Kendall78

I am terribly sorry that you cannot see the humor in that you whine on and on about your perceptions of a person's math skills and whatever else your delusional mind grasps a hold of, but yet you do so in a way that shows your own vast ignorance.

But really, instead of shoving your head in the sand on these topics, offer up an actual scientific counter to them.

I personally think you know you are wrong and cannot bear to admit it. Otherwise you would have offered up evidence to the contrary.

Posted 92 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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