My 10 Reasons to buy The Universim article has been moved to LevelSkip per submission request on Friday. Now, I have 6 articles that is on niche sites. Who's intelligent? Me, that's who?
Good job, Ivan. Another step closer to getting the views you want!
I made an article about Donald Trump and why he needs to be removed from presidency. Go to my profile. You'll find it.
Please don't use the forums solely to promote your articles. The best audience you'll get are external: from Google search, etc... Set that as your target and you'll see better results.
On a side note: When you write a political article, if you resort to name-calling, you'll never attract anyone to your side: You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar.
I wasn't name-calling. I was just stating the facts.
You call the POTUS a 'lying jerk'. Not professional. If I didn't know who you were, and just came across your hub by accident, that would make me press the Back button pretty quickly.
Now, I'm not into US politics, but your hub is a little on the hysterical side. Lots of conjecture. That's why I've avoided giving you feedback on it. There are also some sentences and paragraphs that don't make much sense. For example:
"The Ariana Grande concert in Manchester, England, Las Vegas in September, The Church Shooting in Sutherland; all places which Donald Trump either visited or did not visit. Donald Trump is a very controversial figure in England and all across the world."
The Manchester attack at the Ariana Grande gig took place in May 2017. The tribute concert took place in September.
Climate change claims: you might want to Google that "97% of scientists myth" It has been proven to be a manipulated figure.
"Cognitive scientist and skeptic-of-climate-skeptics John Cook -- then of the University of Queensland in Australia, now of George Mason University in Virginia -- and eight co-authors searched the Web of Science database using the terms “global warming” and “global climate change,” then examined the abstracts of the 11,944 peer-reviewed papers they found to determine what position they took on “anthropogenic global warming” (AGW for short)."
"We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming."
So 97.1% of papers that expressed a position either way. That's only 33.6% of the total papers reviewed. Can you see how it is a skewed figure?
Anyway, I think you need to go through the article, proofread, fact-check, cite your sources correctly, and calm down some of the more outrageous claims and statements. If you haven't got proof or back-up then state that it is your personal opinion.
Work to do, Erick.
Thanks, theraggededge. I will surely proofread this article when I have the time. By the way, where'd you find this article about AGW? email me the link.
Just type into Google what I wrote: 97% of scientists myth - you'll find it, and many others like it.
I'm glad you took the criticism constructively
How about now
https://hubpages.com/politics/10-Reason … Presidency
Mr. Hernandez, while you may want to reword the 97% claim, please don't feel that you have to back off claims that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists affirm AGW.
Here is the link to the article theraggededge cited:
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles … omplicated
Furthermore, here is the explanation that Cook and his co-authors provided for the fact that many papers did not take a position on AGW: "This result is expected in consensus situations where scientists '...generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees' (Oreskes 2007, p 72). This explanation is also consistent with a description of consensus as a 'spiral trajectory' in which 'initially intense contestation generates rapid settlement and induces a spiral of new questions' (Shwed and Bearman 2010); the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."
In other words, Cook plainly states that the reason most of the papers don't take a position is because the existence of AGW is so widely accepted that it is completely unnecessary to explicitly affirm its existence.
As the article states, Cook et al. followed up with the authors who took no position, and due to those responses were able to revise their figures to "62.7 percent of papers endorsing the consensus, 1.8 percent rejecting it and 35.5 percent with no position."
Indeed, as you can see from this 2016 paper, Cook himself continues to agree that there is a high consensus, and he concludes that the consensus among scientists who study climate change is indeed 97%: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.10 … 48002/meta . As you can see here, he also rightly (IMO anyway) dismisses the "taking no position means there is no consensus" argument by pointing out that scientists in other fields almost never take positions on settled theories like plate tectonics.
Cook discussed this 2016 paper (as well as the deliberate attempts by American conservative media to mislead the public about the nature of the consensus) in a short web article in Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists (https://thebulletin.org/yes-there-reall … change9332).
Cook describes his 2016 paper as follows: "A key finding from our meta-study was that scientific agreement was highest among scientists with the most expertise in climate science. This meant that groups with lower climate expertise showed lower agreement on climate change. The group with the lowest level of agreement—at only 47 percent—were economic geologists, who study metals and minerals that can be used for industrial and economic purposes. Conversely, the group with the highest level of agreement—at 97 percent—were climate scientists who were actively publishing climate research.
In short, the greater the expertise, the greater the consensus. The dark side of this relationship is that it allows misinformers to cast doubt on consensus by selecting sub-groups of scientists with lower expertise in climate science, in order to argue that scientific agreement on human-caused global warming is low."
by Holle Abee 20 months ago
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2011/0 … w-settled/
by ahorseback 7 weeks ago
I New it ! The era of "political correctness" may finally be maturing into something slightly better ? NOAA having been instrumental in promoting the whole recent Global Warming alarmism may be returning to it's actual day jobof predicting the weather?
by My Esoteric 19 months ago
There are two major would shaping forces at risk with a Trump presidency; an economic meltdown brought on by a sharp decline in American productivity, and, a much more important one, the environment. I will leave the economy to another forum, for it is the environment I am much more worried...
by Sychophantastic 3 years ago
These are results of a public policy poll:Q1 Do you believe global warming is a hoax, ornot?Do ................................................................... 37%Do not ............................................................. 51%Not sure...
by emievil 8 years ago
I came upon this news that a study showed majority of the Americans do not believe humans caused global warming / climate change. Any idea if this is true? What about the rest of the world, what do we believe?This is the website - http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2 … -activity.
by Judy Specht 4 years ago
How do we know the climate is changing?If the earth is millions of years old what evidence do we have to substantiate man made climate change is indeed man made instead of part of an extended climate cycle?
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|HubPages Device ID||This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel||This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.|
|Remarketing Pixels||We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels||We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.|