Global Warming - aka Don't Bother Having Kids

I really don't believe the energy industry is threatened at all. You see, the current ten year vision still includes them. Alternatives are failing, Germany just went back to coal. California is now using natural gas rather than the expensive solar field. If you had a viable replacement in place, then your argument holds water, but naw. I don't believe they are threatened in the least. So, who does the governments want and what is their objective, now there I believe there is concern. Like raising taxes to provide funding for alternatives that don't work and that comes out of our pockets. Naw, you're on the wrong side IMO.

- - - Updated - - -

See you'd just debunk any info provided, here's the proof. Just turn a blind eye, and continue with your silly nonsense that is wrong.

 

The UN says we need to cut carbon emissions by 80% to stand a fighting chance. That doesn't threaten the energy industry? Exxon has a lot more to gain by upholding the status quo than climatologists, and they thank you for your buying into their propaganda.

Also, what you provided wasn't "proof" of anything, it was one man's argument about semantics.

Here's a description of how that consensus came to be:

"A follow-up study by the Skeptical Science team of over 12,000 peer-reviewed abstracts on the subjects of 'global warming' and 'global climate change' published between 1991 and 2011 found that of the papers taking a position on the cause of global warming, over 97% agreed that humans are causing it (Cook 2013). The scientific authors of the papers were also contacted and asked to rate their own papers, and again over 97% whose papers took a position on the cause said humans are causing global warming."

 

Dude, how are they going to do that if they could?

And there is no evidence to support any such change. If it were indeed 80%, I would expect to see 100 times the effort in alternative type energy objectives. Where is that? so their actions don't show what they say. And, the skeptic denier group, me, have proven that the issue is exaggerated to the max on this. Since there is literally no proof of any such behavior of the planet.

BTW, the fact that Germany just went back to coal, is more evidence.
http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304899704579390871434033460
http://thebreakthrough.org/archive/germany_returns_to_coal

 

One thing that I just thought of, how many scientist are in the UN that they can make that assessment anyway?

 

Between the author of the 97%, John Cook and other scientists.

 

Is that a study from a credible source? A report by a scientific institution? I generally pay more credence to those for my information than a comments section.

- - - Updated - - -

They won't because the energy industry has sucessfully convinced legions of useful idiots that climate change doesn't exist.

 

Then you must not believe in the 97% figure if that is your standard. There are two comments sections on that site, one from scientists, the other general. The comments came from the scientists. John Cook, the cartoonist, was the fellow who's blog came up with the 97% so widely used.

 

the source of the 97% number

In 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”.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2012/07/17/that-scientific-global-warming-consensus-not/

so in reality the 97% is 75 people whose professional careers depend on global warming studies

 

That's what you got? Do you know how silly that sounds? Oh big bad oil is thrashing the governments of the world. LOL!!!

 

What is silly? The energy industry spends enormous amount of money attempting to confuse the issue of climate change. Don't believe me? I linked you to one piece about it, but here we go again.

 

Confuse the issue to whom? They ain't paying me and I believe zero of what I hear on the climate alarmists side. Zero!!!

BTW, do you believe that I'll believe any link you can provide from the liars side of the aisle?

 

That was the 98% but the 97% more widely repeated comes from John Cooks blog, Skeptical Science.

- - - Updated - - -

You should link to the scientists that are not warming alarmist and have no ties to any industry like Judith Curry. BTW, you only get that from alarmist blogs and not from scientists themselves who laugh at it. Also BTW, government funding of alarmism outspends any so called "denial" by a ton.

 

Dream on, noddy.

 

We all know the truly intelligent don't even consider arguments that don't gel with their pre-conceived worldview. Bravo!

 

Oh yea? From you're supposed independent climatologist:

“I do receive some funding from the fossil fuel industry. My company…does [short-term] hurricane forecasting…for an oil company, since 2007. During this period I have been both a strong advocate for the IPCC, and more recently a critic of the IPCC, there is no correlation of this funding with my public statements.”

 

Talk about the pot calling someone out!

 

LOL, yeah, Desmogblog lists her as a skeptic when she isn't one. If you only read the advocacy sites you will only find that label. She is critical of the IPCC structure as are many, of course those that are will be labelled skeptics by the likes of the advocates of CAGW.

You should do some reading other than advocacy sites. You will never know what the real debate is until you do.

 

with that post he just officially admitted to being troll...forum rules and guidelines # 5-trolling or flamebaiting a discussion

 

The source on that quote was Scientific American. Are they not good enough either?

 

Scientific American has become politicized, so no.

 

this thread has me on pins and needles...

 

So they're untrustworthy, but someone with energy industry funding is not?

 

Yes??????

 

Oh yes, I forget that all scientists that are funded by government are to be believed and all scientists, many that have contributed to the government funded IPCC but are skeptical of the alarmism are funded by the energy industry.

 

My thought exactly!