Global Investment in Wind and Solar Energy Is Outshining Fossil Fuels

Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
He Lost ALL OF THEM.

Let's add a few more he's moved on to.

[.......]

Opposing (the AGW consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[33] no longer does any national or international scientific body reject the findings of human-induced effects on climate change.[32][34]

Surveys of scientists and scientific literature​

Various surveys have been conducted to evaluate scientific opinion on global warming. They have concluded that almost all climate scientists support the idea of anthropogenic climate change.[1]


In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[138] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be "remarkable". According to the report, "authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point."

In 2007, Harris Interactive surveyed 489 randomly selected members of either the American Meteorological Society or the American Geophysical Union for the Statistical Assessment Service (STATS) at George Mason University. 97% of the scientists surveyed agreed that global temperatures had increased during the past 100 years; 84% said they personally believed human-induced warming was occurring, and 74% agreed that "currently available scientific evidence" substantiated its occurrence. Catastrophic effects in 50–100 years would likely be observed according to 41%, while 44% thought the effects would be moderate and about 13 percent saw relatively little danger. 5% said they thought human activity did not contribute to greenhouse warming.[139][140][141][142]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 different countries.[143] A web link with a unique identifier was given to each respondent to eliminate multiple responses. A total of 373 responses were received giving an overall response rate of 18.2%. No paper on climate change consensus based on this survey has been published yet (February 2010), but one on another subject has been published based on the survey.[144]

The survey was made up of 76 questions split into a number of sections. There were sections on the demographics of the respondents, their assessment of the state of climate science, how good the science is, climate change impacts, adaptation and mitigation, their opinion of the IPCC, and how well climate science was being communicated to the public. Most of the answers were on a scale from 1 to 7 from "not at all" to "very much".

To the question "How convinced are you that climate change, whether natural or anthropogenic, is occurring now?", 67.1% said they very much agreed, 26.7% agreed to some large extent, 6.2% said to they agreed to some small extent (2–4), none said they did not agree at all. To the question "How convinced are you that most of recent or near future climate change is, or will be, a result of anthropogenic causes?" the responses were 34.6% very much agree, 48.9% agreeing to a large extent, 15.1% to a small extent, and 1.35% not agreeing at all.

A poll performed by Peter Doran and Maggie Kendall Zimmerman at University of Illinois at Chicago received replies from 3,146 of the 10,257 polled Earth scientists. Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists 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" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels. Seventy-five of 77 believed that human activity is a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures. Among all respondents, 90% agreed that temperatures have risen compared to pre-1800 levels, and 82% agreed that humans significantly influence the global temperature. Economic geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in significant human involvement. The authors summarised the findings:[145]


A 2010 paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States (PNAS) reviewed publication and citation data for 1,372 climate researchers and drew the following two conclusions:[146]


A 2013 paper in Environmental Research Letters reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers matching "global warming" or "global climate change". They found 4,014 which discussed the cause of recent global warming, and of these "97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming".[147] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[148] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[149]


Peer-reviewed studies of the consensus on anthropogenic global warming
A 2012 analysis of published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming.[150] A follow-up analysis looking at 2,258 peer-reviewed climate articles with 9,136 authors published between November 2012 and December 2013 revealed that only one of the 9,136 authors rejected anthropogenic global warming.[151] His 2015 paper on the topic, covering 24,210 articles published by 69,406 authors during 2013 and 2014 found only five articles by four authors rejecting anthropogenic global warming. Over 99.99% of climate scientists did not reject AGW in their peer-reviewed research.[152]

James Lawrence Powell reported in 2017 that using rejection as the criterion of consensus, five surveys of the peer-reviewed literature from 1991 to 2015, including several of those above, combine to 54,195 articles with an average consensus of 99.94%.[153] In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles published in the first seven months of 2019 showed that the consensus had reached 100%.[2]

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers examined from 88,125 peer-reviewed studies related to climate that were published since 2012, only 4 were sceptical about man-made climate change.[154]
[...........]
[...........]

SQOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSH!
ever provide that prediction that came true yet?
 
LOL.
You Only answered, if FAILED, about Miami, which like all other cities on the East coast has plans for dealing with Rising Sea Level, some implemented in many places already.

On the Military, I just used a piece of a OP of mine and also bumped the whole thread on the topic... One of many links and lots of discussion. Have at it.

So you LOST ALL OF YOUR "#1"

And you didn't touch my rebuttal of YOUR #2, or #3/#4.
In # 2, I actually explained in my own words (not "google") why we know it IS AGW this time
That was beyond anything you could ever do and it shut up/down forever.


All the rest is empty Mouthing
You were absolutely CRUSHED on all 4 of YOUR numbers.

What at a complete @ss kicking.
You were totally GUTTED on YOUR numbered points "1, 2, 3, 4" never to be seen again.


`
post one prediction that has come true. still waiting.
 
Results were analyzed globally and by specialization. 76 out of 79 climatologists 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" believed that mean global temperatures had risen compared to pre-1800s levels.

Pre-1800 we were in the Little Ice Age......
 
I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address point 2, and Abu dabba do, dies not recognize or remember what his/her second point was?

LYING now.
The 4 ALL still gone.
I absolutely did show with Miami (not the larger point Military bases) which were Not built that way... either.
And absolutely all the big cities on the East Coast, as well as Naval installations (our biggest Norfolk) Noticing the rise and preparing for more.

You must like in Denver to be so dense.

2. The scientific consensus. You made the claim, you posted an opinion piece that only shows the scientists were never asked what their opinion is. Researches looked at abstracts of papers, papers we are not able to read. Based on what criteria did the researchers come to their opinion of what others think?

Post the studies, opinions of what studies say is much different and obscures the truth.

A study, not the abstract.

Nobody asked all, half, or a tenth of the scientists if the believe.

I want to see the questions the researchers applied to the abstracts.

You made the claim, prove it. Your link to an OP means you have zero facts.
That's not an opinion piece, that was Wikipedi, citong wioth Footnortes many paper on the issue, as ell as Everey Natl qan dInt Sci org on board with AGHW

Now you Just LIE
LIE
LIE
LIE

YOU set the 1, 2, 3, 4. and got Beat on every point.
So then defaulted to just half of #1 in your reply to my Full 4 pt rebuttal.
YOU Dropped the numbers.
You just Dishonest and can't admit defeat.
Just a last-wording child who can't take a loss.


`
 
Last edited:
Hey, dumb fucker, you disagreed with my post yet you are not man enough nor smart enough to actually respond to the facts I presented. I am just here rubbing it in your face and pointing out to everyone else, that you cant actually support your opinion with facts.

1) all predictions of problems caused have not materialized. Zero proof that a warmer climate is bad.

2)global warming is caused by fluctuations of the sun. Zero proof CO2 causes warming. CO2 is falsely labeled a pollutant by the government. CO2 is needed for life, for plants.

3) Global warming is not proven. Fossil fuel burning can not be the problem when the solar and wind solution requires more fossil fuels to be burned.

4) our infrastructure is not the problem. And the solution you propose, burn fossil fuels to make solar and wind power, again is what you claim the problem.
AGAIN above was Elektra's initial numbered 4 points I refuted in detail with same numbers. Then he went into BS non-number, last-word mode after just mentioning 'Miami.' (not the other large cities or My Larger response with Military bases facing same.
That's it. He Whiffed on all the meat. Dropped/Lost the 4 points.


OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.

Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...
www.usmessageboard.com


3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


5. In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.

` - - - - - - - -


And that's who it actually ended before he went into Deflection mode.
He is not remotely in the game.

And Huge/Conspicuous: Not even mentioning my Devastating #2 (the biggest Issue), the reason we know the current warming IS AGW!

`
 
Last edited:
AGAIN here was Elektra's initial numbered 4 poinmts I refuuted and then he went into BS non-number last-word mode.

OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.

Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.

How do we Know Human are Causing Climate Change?

so many clowns, new and old here, say it's all natural "it goes up, it goes down" but scientists have actually looked into WHY this cycle is different than the others. About 615,000,000 results (0.30 seconds) Search Results Web results How We Know Today's Climate Change Is Not Natural...
www.usmessageboard.com


3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.


5. In summary you posts are Pieces of sh*t, just repeating trite and wrong RW talking points.
You're just a loudmouth MAGAt.
You aren't even debate material, but I graced your crap anyway.
Maybe you will finally start to post like you have a 3 digit IQ but I doubt it.

`
still looks like floating boats.
 
Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
He Lost ALL OF THEM.

Let's add a few more he's moved on to.

] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers

reviewed 11,944 abstracts of scientific papers

54,195 articles In November 2019, his survey of over 11,600 peer-reviewed articles

A survey conducted in 2021 found that of a random selection of 3,000 papers

I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address
 
I moved on? You failed to explain how normal high tide flooding of streets built below high tide proves a prediction of global sea rise from 20 years ago.

Abu dabba do, then offers a woman's opinion derived from military family members, addressing heat stress?

Abu dabba do, then says the navy is addressing sea level rise and as proof, Abu dabba do cuts/pastes a Google search on navy worst case predictions 100 years from now? That is not proof the sea has risen or will rise, do to CO2.

I then address
You folded.
the exchange is now above in it's entirety for All to see.
I'm done with you now BOY.
Pull up your pants and go crying to your older sister.


EDIT:
Now you're going to see Below how I oft leave the losers.
Baying at the moon.
Multi-posting to make up for what they realize is inadequate.

`
 
Last edited:
LYING now.
The 4 ALL still gone.
I absolutely did show with Miami which was not built that way
And abolutely all the big cities on the East Coast, as well as Naval installations (our biggest Norfolk)

Miami, many streets built below the high tide Mark is a fact..

Miami, built at sea level, on a sand island and as well as from swamps, marsh, wetlands, and or everglades that was filled in.

Miami, is not under water as was predicted.

Abu dabba do has posted nothing to prove the past prediction came true.

Abu dabba do has only posted sci-fi predictions of the future
 
Now all 4 of Elektra's points are gone
I have only addressed 2 points of 4. My comments in response to somebody else.

Abu dabba do. Can not get that much right yet he/she wants us to, "believe", right along with.

2. Once again, "survey says" is not Science. A review of abstracts against questions we don't get to see is not proof. Not asking any scientist their opinion proves you don't want their answer, you need to be able to lie about what they think.
 
OK, I'm back **** for brains and here to debunk you EMPTY CLAIMS... AGAIN.

1. Problems have materialized in many places and many forms.
(I'm leaving out the more debatable more extreme weather cause by warmer air/water)
Sea Level issues already a problem in many places in the last few decades.
Miami Floods regularly now just on normal high tides.
Our Naval bases do too now.

2. PAST warming was caused, or at least started by the sun.
Not this Time.
Among the sober there is only GW and AGW, no cooling.
90-something percent of climate scientists and 100% of Intl Sci orgs say it is in good part human caused: AGW. (anthropogenic global warming).

How do we/they know? They have looked at past warming cycles and they were caused by the the earths orbital position/increased solar radiation/"forcing."
That is Not true of this one.

Usually that solar forcing sets loose the Greenhouse Gases (CO2, CH4, Water vapor, etc) which dramatically increases the warming. This time however solar radiation has not increased but the trapping effect of the GHG's we have pumped at an unprecedented rate/speed into the atmo has.
Co2 has increased from 280 PPM in 1850 to over 400PPM now: the Industrial Revolution. Most of it the last 70 yrs.
Sci guys have measured the radiation-in: (stable), and radiation-out: (partly but increasingly blocked from reflecting back into space at the precise spectral wavelengths of the GHGs.)

Also see my thread on this: containing the info above I encapsulated in part.


3/4. Fallacious attempt
Solar and other renewables still use Fossils fuels to produce them but as they become a higher percentage of power generation they will; reproduce themselves.
Hahahaha! I lose? On these two points? I am suppose to prove that has not happened can not happen? That is your claim to, "winning" on these two points.

You simply have to say, "this will happen in the future", and you win?

You got me there super genius.

But, what will replace propene in the production of fiberglass. Propene only comes from oil?

A spectacular failure on point three and four. Just when I figure nobody can be dumber than old crock and cricket, Abu dabba do easily proves he/she is thee dumbest.
 
God man, you are hopelessly stupid. The batteries in the garage and the vehicles are the backup. Incredible how dense you are.
Tesla Powerwall costs $7800/unit. I think you normally need two of them, so that's $15,600. How many poor Democrat families can afford that?
 

Our Clients
They include corporations, partnerships, institutions, governments, sovereign entities and individuals. Our Asset Management business serves a diverse global client base that includes pensions, sovereign wealth funds, governments, corporations, financial institutions and high-net-worth individuals

That didn't prove it, moron.
 
Says the man who denies the conclusions of 99% of the planet's climate scientists.
Post the facts, just because you or someone else says so, it is true?

You won't be able to post the study, if you come close missing from the study will be the questions and or parameters the "researchers" applied to an article or abstract of a paper.

What you post may be called a study but it will be missing all the crucial data that was used.

Hell, you can not even begin to tell us how many scientists there are in the world.

99%, your claim, prove it, and a Google linked article dictating it so is not proof.

Post the study with all the data and papers used.
 
still looks like floating boats.
Such a lying little asshole you are. Many posts have pointed out the many predictions of scientists that have absolutely happened, from the opening of the Northwest Passage to extreme weather events. That you continue to lie about that does not change those predictions from already having happened. You are a worthless little troll, with nothing to contribute to this discussion but lies.
 

Forum List

Back
Top