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
5 days 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

Kendall78

"that was the head of the noaa climate program ADMITTING climatology lies to get reactions and funding."

Umm..no. That was not said at all.

Posted 72 days ago.

Tiredofit

Ithink we omit the data that does not fit the model, the leaked emails prove that.

Posted 72 days ago.

Tiredofit

You missed the point again Kendall, that was the head of the noaa climate program ADMITTING climatology lies to get reactions and funding.

Posted 72 days ago.

Kendall78

"What made it change 20,000 years ago, as someone mentioned?"

Is what happened 20,000 year ago relevant to the change in climate in the last few centuries?

Posted 72 days ago.

Kendall78

"Can't explain that away!"

You're right, you can't explain away that Dyson has an opinion on opinions.

Posted 72 days ago.

No one doubts that the climate changes. It always has and always will. What made it change 20,000 years ago, as someone mentioned?. It sure wasn't caused by burning WV coal.

Posted 72 days ago.

Tiredofit

Can't explain that away!

Posted 72 days ago.

Tiredofit

Dyson is not a “global-warming heretic”; he does not dispute the science. He simply says, and rightfully so, that the science is both uncertain and very much exaggerated. 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.

MONIKA KOPACZ Applied Mathematics and Atmospheric Sciences Harvard University

Cambridge, Mass. NOAA CLIMATE PROJECT MANAGER

Posted 72 days ago.

h ttp://w ww.forbes.c om/sites/patrickmichaels/2014/02/03/will-the-overselling-of-global-warming-lead-to-a-new-scientific-dark-age/

" Will the overselling of climate change lead to a new scientific dark age? That’s the question being posed in the latest issue of an Australian literary journal, Quadrant, by Garth Paltridge, one of the world’s most respected atmospheric scientists."

Posted 72 days ago.

harryanderson

Ithink, echoing Tiredofit, wrote, “Efforts to get big money grants have led to the distortion and falsifying of statistics.”

There sure has been big money offered—to disprove the IPCC 2007 report.

“Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.”

htt p://ww w.theguardian.co m/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange

That’s following the money.

BTW: Did anyone ever claim this bounty?

Posted 72 days ago.

mythravere

" Once science loses complete credibility with the public"

That won't happen. Its only "losing" credibility with those who don't like what it says.

Making claims about the credibility of science is a tactic meant to undermine the influence of scientific authority.

The issue of man made climate change has been labeled a leftwing cause. Calling into question the science of that issue and the scientists themselves is a matter of rightwing policy now.

No compromise...they say....remember that. Acknowledging the veracity of something that is seen as a leftwing cause goes against the rule of no compromise. Doing so is tantamount to aiding and abetting the enemy in the eyes of many a rightwinger. Especially rightwing media mouths.

Posted 72 days ago.

harryanderson

A prosecutor named Pruitt was deciding whether to charge a suspect, Lawyer Bink, with firing the fatal shot. Bink, presented testimony from 201 of his fellow lawyers saying he was a good lawyer.

Pruitt submitted Bink’s gun and the bullet to the world’s top 200 ballistics experts. 194 (97%) of them said Bink’s gun “unequivocally” fired the fatal shot.

Pruitt charged Bink with the crime. His assistant asked him why, since the testimony of 201 professionals in favor of Bink seemed to outweigh the testimony of 194 professionals on the other side. Pruitt said, “The lawyers don’t have the relevant expertise. When 97% of those with the most relevant expertise say Pruitt’s gun fired the fatal shot, the jury will see it as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the shot came from his gun.”

Posted 72 days ago.

We are in a new scientific dark age according to some articles I read. Science has been taken over by political ideology. Efforts to get big money grants have led to the distortion and falsifying of statistics. Once science loses complete credibility with the public, it will be hard to get back.

Forbes has an enlightening new article.

Posted 72 days ago.

Kendall78

Except my belief is backed up by facts where your belief is backed up by wishful thinking.

Posted 73 days ago.

Tiredofit

believe as you will, I will do the same.

Posted 73 days ago.

Kendall78

"It is not for me to prove that man IS NOT changing the climate its up to YOU to prove he is."

It is for you to prove what you feel to be the truth. You think it is merely a natural cycle, yet you have no evidence to back that up.

Those that hold that the climate is being effected by mankind has offered up evidence to support that conclusion. In response, you opt for the "head in the sand" strategy and ignore what you do not want to hear and offer nothing in a form of an educated rebuttal.

Posted 73 days ago.

Kendall78

"Natural cycle as I have said many many times."

You say many thing but you offer no evidence to back it up.

Posted 73 days ago.

Tiredofit

It is not for me to prove that man IS NOT changing the climate its up to YOU to prove he is. Nice ploy.

Posted 73 days ago.

Tiredofit

Are u the warming steward now?

Posted 73 days ago.

Tiredofit

Kendall when did you become WE?

Posted 73 days ago.
 
 
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

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