0
rushmc

97% Consensus BS

Recommended Posts

Anvilbrother

Who cares how the FUCK it goes could we stop hijacking threads around here with a bunch of BS?



Look at the title, it has BS in the nsame, how could BS be off topic?

Not my fault you didn't know there was as much consensus about climate change as the shape of the earth :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The point was that at a certain point everyone who wasn't westboro baptist church insane agreed that the earth wasn't flat. When are we going to the to the point where everyone who isnt tin foil hat insane, or has a monitary motive finally going to agree on this environment issue.

Did not figure we had anyone here who would not realize it was a vague comparison, and not a fact to go off on. I was wrong there are those kinds of people here...

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

When are we going to the to the point where everyone who isn't tin foil hat insane, or has a monetary motive finally going to agree on this environment issue.



We are already at that point. 97% of scientists agree on that.
Never try to eat more than you can lift

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>The point was that at a certain point everyone who wasn't westboro
>baptist church insane agreed that the earth wasn't flat.

Right. And there was a period where everyone who followed the science agreed that CO2 was a greenhouse gas, and that increasing its concentration would increase temperatures. In 1988 there was very little doubt about this, as evinced by the papers of the time about the issue. They knew they would have to do more work to quantify how _much_ warming there would be, since they could (at that time) only model the first order effect of the radiative forcing.

But no climate scientist out there denied that CO2 was increasing, or that it would cause warming as it increased. Thus among the people who followed the science (which has always been a small percentage of people) everyone agreed CO2 was increasing and that it would cause warming.

During this time the IPCC was first organized to quantify how much warming there would be and how it would affect the world. They released their first report in 1990.

Suddenly there was a single report that listed the science, the risks and the potentials for change that increasing levels of AGW gases would cause. Oil and coal companies realized quickly that they had to do something or they would lose money as CO2 levels became a greater concern. Thus organized denial was born. Brian Flannery, Exxon’s Chief Scientific Advisor, demanded that the IPCC change their conclusions; the IPCC refused.

They needed bigger guns. So Exxon funded Fred Singer to start publicly denying the science. The American Petroleum Institute put five million dollars behind a plan to (in their own words) "recruit a cadre of scientists who share the industry's views of climate science and to train them in public relations so they can help convince journalists, politicians and the public that the risk of global warming is too uncertain to justify controls on greenhouse gases." Their plan had a goal of "raising questions about and undercutting the 'prevailing scientific wisdom'" on climate change. (Again, their own words.)

Notice they did not say they felt that there was no consensus; they stated quite clearly that their goal was to _undercut_ the existing consensus.

That was just the beginning of the hundreds of millions of dollars that would be pumped into climate change denial. They have still failed to change the opinion of scientists, which is why every study done shows 97%+ of scientists agree with the consensus view. However, as this thread demonstrates, they have managed to convince quite a few non-scientists that their propaganda is valid.

> When are we going to the to the point where everyone who isnt tin foil hat
>insane, or has a monitary motive finally going to agree on this environment
>issue.

We got there about 30 years ago. Since then, the denial industry has been successful in selling fear, doubt and uncertainty to people. Likewise, alarmists have managed to scare people far out of proportion to the actual risks of climate change.

Fortunately, during this entire time, _scientists_ have not been overly swayed by all the denial and alarmism - and are nearly as united today in their views on climate change as they were in 1988.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Remster

***You wasted your time I literally read none of that wall of text.



Good things Fox headlines are shorter.

really? I didn't know that. I find it interesting that you pay attention to Fox News. I might have to think about my opinion of you over that
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lawrocket

******

Quote

Richard Tol’s Excellent Summary of the Flaws in Cook et al. (2013) – The Infamous 97% Consensus Paper








http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/26/richard-tols-excellent-summary-of-the-flaws-in-cook-et-al-2013-the-infamous-97-consensus-paper/


ALWAYS look for the "Man behind the Curtain"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watts_Up_With_That%3F

I wonder how many Koch Brothers bought and paid for bloggers the blogosphere can tolerate.:ph34r::ph34r:

I prefer to look within the papers. Sometime people will hopefully value the message more than the messenger.

I generally don't get involved in this topic and I have much respect/appreciation for your posts on the subject. - keep them coming!

I just found this quote rather peculiar from the OP link:
Quote

If you want to believe that climate researchers are incompetent, biased and secretive, Cook’s paper is an excellent case in point.



Is that what this is all about?

If the paper has something legitimate to say, you'd think they want to open it up the the largest audience possible.
Never was there an answer....not without listening, without seeing - Gilmour

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

You wasted your time I literally read none of that wall of text.



Priceless. You ask a question. Complain about the bullshit answers given in jest. Then refuse to read an honest and well thought out response to your question.

You really are just a troll aren't you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
rushmc

******You wasted your time I literally read none of that wall of text.



Good things Fox headlines are shorter.

really? I didn't know that. I find it interesting that you pay attention to Fox News. I might have to think about my opinion of you over that

You just look at the pictures right? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Summary for the sound bite only people:

Coal fails and investors bail while solar succeeds!

Details for the brainiacs on the nerd patrol:

Coal is having some basic problems that are scaring investors off. Growth in coal peaked in 2007 and has been declining ever since, leading to fears about the future of coal in the US.

Meanwhile, the completion of several utility-scale solwer power plants has pushed solar power to over 5% of California's total energy generation. This has been a lifesaver in California in particular, because a large fraction of its electrical power comes from hydro - and this has been a drought year. Solar is ideal as a way to preserve water, because dams can shut down and restart electrical generation rapidly as solar power varies throughout the day.

========================================
http://www.carbontracker.org/report/the-us-coal-crash/


The US Coal Crash – Evidence for Structural Change
March 12 2015
CTI

The market for thermal coal is in structural decline in the United States. Squeezed out by an abundance of cheap shale gas and ever tightening pollution laws, it may be a harbinger of things to come for other fossil fuel markets globally.

This report paints a bleak picture and makes grim reading for investors. It finds that in the last few years U.S. coal markets have been pounded by a combination of cheaper renewables, energy efficiency measures, rising construction costs and a rash of legal challenges as well as the shale gas revolution.

Whilst historically economic growth in the US has consistently driven increased coal use, there is now clear evidence of a decoupling of the two. In fact, despite GDP continuing to rise, domestic coal use peaked in 2007 and has been on a declining trend since.
. . .
Coal’s problems appear to be structural rather than cyclical; accordingly, rather than betting on a cyclical upturn, investors should resist the urge to get back into the US coal sector. We doubt that “business as usual” (as it has previously been understood) will ever return, so investors should seek capital discipline from management and challenge capital expenditure on high-cost projects.

======================================
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492
California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar

March 24, 2015

California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly. California's utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California's utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.

. . .

California has promoted solar power through a series of state policies, including a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires electricity providers to obtain 33% of the power they sell from eligible renewable sources by 2020. In 2014, the state obtained 22% of its electricity from nonhydropower renewables including wind, solar, and biomass.

California also created incentives, including rebates and net-metering policies, to encourage rooftop and other small-scale solar capacity, whose generation is not captured in the above figure. By the end of 2014, more than 2,300 MW of small-scale solar capacity was installed on homes and businesses, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

. . .

The increase in California's solar production came the same year that drought conditions caused hydroelectric generation to fall 46% compared to the previous five-year average. Although solar is only available at certain times of the day, the annual increase in California's solar generation in 2014 offset 83% of the decrease in hydroelectric generation. Along with increases in generation from wind power and geothermal energy, solar power helped make California the top state producer of nonhydroelectric renewable electricity in 2014, narrowly topping Texas.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
billvon

Summary for the sound bite only people:

Coal fails and investors bail while solar succeeds!

Details for the brainiacs on the nerd patrol:

Coal is having some basic problems that are scaring investors off. Growth in coal peaked in 2007 and has been declining ever since, leading to fears about the future of coal in the US.

Meanwhile, the completion of several utility-scale solwer power plants has pushed solar power to over 5% of California's total energy generation. This has been a lifesaver in California in particular, because a large fraction of its electrical power comes from hydro - and this has been a drought year. Solar is ideal as a way to preserve water, because dams can shut down and restart electrical generation rapidly as solar power varies throughout the day.

========================================
http://www.carbontracker.org/report/the-us-coal-crash/


The US Coal Crash – Evidence for Structural Change
March 12 2015
CTI

The market for thermal coal is in structural decline in the United States. Squeezed out by an abundance of cheap shale gas and ever tightening pollution laws, it may be a harbinger of things to come for other fossil fuel markets globally.

This report paints a bleak picture and makes grim reading for investors. It finds that in the last few years U.S. coal markets have been pounded by a combination of cheaper renewables, energy efficiency measures, rising construction costs and a rash of legal challenges as well as the shale gas revolution.

Whilst historically economic growth in the US has consistently driven increased coal use, there is now clear evidence of a decoupling of the two. In fact, despite GDP continuing to rise, domestic coal use peaked in 2007 and has been on a declining trend since.
. . .
Coal’s problems appear to be structural rather than cyclical; accordingly, rather than betting on a cyclical upturn, investors should resist the urge to get back into the US coal sector. We doubt that “business as usual” (as it has previously been understood) will ever return, so investors should seek capital discipline from management and challenge capital expenditure on high-cost projects.

======================================
http://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=20492
California first state to generate more than 5% of electricity from utility-scale solar

March 24, 2015

California has become the first state with more than 5% of its annual utility-scale electricity generation from utility-scale solar power, according to EIA's Electric Power Monthly. California's utility-scale (1 megawatt (MW) or larger) solar plants generated a record 9.9 million megawatthours (MWh) of electricity in 2014, an increase of 6.1 million MWh from 2013. California's utility-scale solar production in 2014 was more than three times the output of the next-highest state, Arizona, and more than all other states combined.

. . .

California has promoted solar power through a series of state policies, including a renewable portfolio standard (RPS) that requires electricity providers to obtain 33% of the power they sell from eligible renewable sources by 2020. In 2014, the state obtained 22% of its electricity from nonhydropower renewables including wind, solar, and biomass.

California also created incentives, including rebates and net-metering policies, to encourage rooftop and other small-scale solar capacity, whose generation is not captured in the above figure. By the end of 2014, more than 2,300 MW of small-scale solar capacity was installed on homes and businesses, according to the California Public Utilities Commission.

. . .

The increase in California's solar production came the same year that drought conditions caused hydroelectric generation to fall 46% compared to the previous five-year average. Although solar is only available at certain times of the day, the annual increase in California's solar generation in 2014 offset 83% of the decrease in hydroelectric generation. Along with increases in generation from wind power and geothermal energy, solar power helped make California the top state producer of nonhydroelectric renewable electricity in 2014, narrowly topping Texas.



You don't think that the decline was engineered by the current administration?

Hell, if coal had as much help from the government, it would completely dominate green energy.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
turtlespeed



Hell, if coal had as much help from the government, it would completely dominate green energy.



Oh, poor fossil fuels, ignored by the government. Where's my hanky?

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables
...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
http://patriotpost.us/posts/34330

Quote

“A study by scientists at Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Meteorology found that man-made aerosols had a much smaller cooling effect on the atmosphere during the 20th Century than was previously thought. Why is this big news? It means increases in carbon dioxide emissions likely cause less warming than most climate models suggest.” The study is even listed on the American Meteorological Society website.



http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00656.1

Maybe a couple of claims
"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kallend

***

Hell, if coal had as much help from the government, it would completely dominate green energy.



Oh, poor fossil fuels, ignored by the government. Where's my hanky?

www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Federal_coal_subsidies

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-12/fossil-fuels-with-550-billion-in-subsidy-hurt-renewables

That's funny, these don't seem to match your articles.
http://data.instituteforenergyresearch.org/tax-subsidies/oil-gas-coal/
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0