Group Representing Half A Billion Christians Says It Will No Longer Support Fossil Fu

[skookerasbil]

Wrong

Petroleum (L. petroleum, from Greek: πέτρα (rock) + Latin: oleum (oil)[1][2][3]) is a naturally occurring, yellow-to-black liquid found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface, which is commonly refined into various types of fuels

Wikipedia: petroleum

Ooooooooooooooops!!!!

 

[jon_berzerk]

Wrong

Petroleum (L. petroleum, from Greek: πέτρα (rock) + Latin: oleum (oil)[1][2][3]) is a naturally occurring, yellow-to-black liquid found in geologic formations beneath the Earth's surface, which is commonly refined into various types of fuels

Wikipedia: petroleum

yes however your reference to petroleum through the professor

was a petroleum product

 

[Crick]

No it was not, but... that point is irrelevant. As petroleum becomes more and more difficult and more and more costly to find, it will not be just the cost of operating SUVs that will rise intolerably. It will be the cost of the thousands of products and chemicals also made from PETROLEUM.

 

[mudwhistle]

Solar, geothermal and Fusion along with a few others would cut out the need to have a long and costly supply chain. Like we do now with coal, oil and natural gas.

We're better off switching over.

Mr.h can you agree that it is possible?

We can't go fusion because you can't run a car off of nukes, not to mention Jane Fonda made that stupid movie and turned everyone off to nukes and nuclear waste.

We can't go Geothermal because you can't use that on a car either, and the tree-huggers will say that you're killing some grub when you dig up the dirt and bury your pipes......and then Jane Fonda or Matt Damen will make a stupid movie about it.

Solar isn't feasible as an alternative because it's too expensive and doesn't provide enough energy to propel a vehicle. It's only good for heating water and charging batteries which eventually wear out and we can't build in America thanks to the libs and the Democraps.

One thing that could work is fuel cells. But because Bush gave speeches on it the Democraps don't want to even consider it.

The best solution is biofuels. Using waste and garbage as fuel. But then California considers the byproducts to be toxic waste, so they tax the shit out of it.

Guess the liberals have us operating with both hands tied behind our backs. The elitists will still use fossil-fuels to jet to Katty Perry concerts in Paris and we'll be stuck sweating it out because they took away our AC.

 

[Crick]

We can't go fusion because you can't run a car off of nukes, not to mention Jane Fonda made that stupid movie and turned everyone off to nukes and nuclear waste.

Fusion makes electricity off of which you can most certainly run a car. And the movie made by Jane Fonda (and Jack Lemmon) concerned the corrupt operators of a fission plant, not fusion and I suspect you and I are the only ones who remember it.

We can't go Geothermal because you can't use that on a car either, and the tree-huggers will say that you're killing some grub when you dig up the dirt and bury your pipes......and then Jane Fonda or Matt Damen will make a stupid movie about it.

Geothermal is of very limited use because there is very little geothermal energy available. Where it is available, it works very well and no one is making any movies about it.

Solar isn't feasible as an alternative because it's too expensive and doesn't provide enough energy to propel a vehicle.

Solar has been getting steadily cheaper and recent developments look to bring it to the cost of fossil fuel. And it is certainly capable of providing enough energy to propel a vehicle (via the grid, like every other solution)

It's only good for heating water and charging batteries which eventually wear out and we can't build in America thanks to the libs and the Democraps.

It makes electricity that is just fine for anything needing electricity. It does not wear out anywhere near as fast as power sources with hot, moving parts, corrosive cooling fluids and heated combustion gases. We could easily build them in America if you're willing to eliminate America's minimum wage laws, workplace safety standards and pollution laws. Are you so willing?

One thing that could work is fuel cells. But because Bush gave speeches on it the Democraps don't want to even consider it.

No one cares about Bush's speeches. Work on fuel cells continues within the government and a number of companies. Honda (or Toyota(?)) has several prototype fuel cell vehicles operating in California. There are still issues to overcome, the largest of which is the lack of hydrogen infrastructure and the next is how to store hydrogen onboard these vehicels as compressed gas tanks are heavy and inefficient.

The best solution is biofuels. Using waste and garbage as fuel. But then California considers the byproducts to be toxic waste, so they tax the shit out of it.

Using waste and garbage as fuels does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Guess the liberals have us operating with both hands tied behind our backs. The elitists will still use fossil-fuels to jet to Katty Perry concerts in Paris and we'll be stuck sweating it out because they took away our AC.

If anything you said here had been accurate or correct, you might have a point to make. But they weren't so you don't.

 

[mudwhistle]

We can't go fusion because you can't run a car off of nukes, not to mention Jane Fonda made that stupid movie and turned everyone off to nukes and nuclear waste.

Fusion makes electricity off of which you can most certainly run a car. And the movie made by Jane Fonda (and Jack Lemmon) concerned the corrupt operators of a fission plant, not fusion and I suspect you and I are the only ones who remember it.

We can't go Geothermal because you can't use that on a car either, and the tree-huggers will say that you're killing some grub when you dig up the dirt and bury your pipes......and then Jane Fonda or Matt Damen will make a stupid movie about it.

Geothermal is of very limited use because there is very little geothermal energy available. Where it is available, it works very well and no one is making any movies about it.



Solar has been getting steadily cheaper and recent developments look to bring it to the cost of fossil fuel. And it is certainly capable of providing enough energy to propel a vehicle (via the grid, like every other solution)



It makes electricity that is just fine for anything needing electricity. It does not wear out anywhere near as fast as power sources with hot, moving parts, corrosive cooling fluids and heated combustion gases. We could easily build them in America if you're willing to eliminate America's minimum wage laws, workplace safety standards and pollution laws. Are you so willing?



No one cares about Bush's speeches. Work on fuel cells continues within the government and a number of companies. Honda (or Toyota(?)) has several prototype fuel cell vehicles operating in California. There are still issues to overcome, the largest of which is the lack of hydrogen infrastructure and the next is how to store hydrogen onboard these vehicels as compressed gas tanks are heavy and inefficient.

The best solution is biofuels. Using waste and garbage as fuel. But then California considers the byproducts to be toxic waste, so they tax the shit out of it.

Using waste and garbage as fuels does nothing to reduce CO2 emissions.

Guess the liberals have us operating with both hands tied behind our backs. The elitists will still use fossil-fuels to jet to Katty Perry concerts in Paris and we'll be stuck sweating it out because they took away our AC.

If anything you said here had been accurate or correct, you might have a point to make. But they weren't so you don't.

Actually most of what I said was more honest and accurate than what you said.

CO2 emissions isn't the poison you think it is. Our CO2 level is quite low. The only reason CO2 was chosen is because of the endless possibilities for taxation. Even to the point that every man, woman, and child can be taxed simply for breathing.

The reason nukes are out of the question is because of the fear of meltdowns and other nuclear accidents. If you say this is nonsense then you haven't been awake since the 70s when "The China Syndrome" was the big rage around America, and 3-Mile Island was a big deal. However, Europe has nukes everywhere. They don't seem to be much of a problem for them.

The kicker in your spewage was your comment on Bush speeches. After revealing that little kernel of information, it was clear that you aren't really objective at all.

 

[Crick]

Actually most of what I said was more honest and accurate than what you said.

No, it was all factually incorrect.

CO2 emissions isn't the poison you think it is.

CO2 is poisonous to all animal life (though this is completely irrelevant) and human CO2 emissions are exactly the danger to human culture that I, 97% of all climate scientists and the IPCC believe them to be.

Our CO2 level is quite low. The only reason CO2 was chosen is because of the endless possibilities for taxation. Even to the point that every man, woman, and child can be taxed simply for breathing.

That is complete and utter nonsense.

The reason nukes are out of the question is because of the fear of meltdowns and other nuclear accidents.

That is certainly a more accurate statement than the facetious nonsense in your original post.

If you say this is nonsense then you haven't been awake since the 70s when "The China Syndrome" was the big rage around America, and 3-Mile Island was a big deal. However, Europe has nukes everywhere. They don't seem to be much of a problem for them.

I am 60 years old. I was around. But if you think the opposition to nuclear power is a result of a forty year old movie, you're an idiot. Opposition to nuclear power is a result of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And Europe has closed down more nuke plants than any other part of the globe.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_phase-out

Sweden (1980) was the first country to begin a phase-out (influenced by the Three Mile Island accident), followed by Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany (2000). Austria and Spain have enacted laws to cease construction on new nuclear power stations. Several other European countries have debated phase-outs.

Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022.[2] Italy voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[3] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors.[4] Japan’s prime minister has called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[5] Taiwan’s president did the same. Shinzō Abe, the new prime minister of Japan since December 2012, announced a plan to re-start some of the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to continue some NPP sites under construction.[6]

As of 2013, countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway remain opposed to nuclear power.[7][8] Germany and Switzerland are phasing-out nuclear power.[8][9][10] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years.[9]

Seems as if nuclear power IS "much of a problem" for the Europeans.

The kicker in your spewage was your comment on Bush speeches. After revealing that little kernel of information, it was clear that you aren't really objective at all.

HAH ! ! ! And you are?!?!? Give us a fooking break.

 

[mudwhistle]

Actually most of what I said was more honest and accurate than what you said.

No, it was all factually incorrect.

CO2 emissions isn't the poison you think it is.

CO2 is poisonous to all animal life (though this is completely irrelevant) and human CO2 emissions are exactly the danger to human culture that I, 97% of all climate scientists and the IPCC believe them to be.



That is complete and utter nonsense.



That is certainly a more accurate statement than the facetious nonsense in your original post.

If you say this is nonsense then you haven't been awake since the 70s when "The China Syndrome" was the big rage around America, and 3-Mile Island was a big deal. However, Europe has nukes everywhere. They don't seem to be much of a problem for them.

I am 60 years old. I was around. But if you think the opposition to nuclear power is a result of a forty year old movie, you're an idiot. Opposition to nuclear power is a result of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And Europe has closed down more nuke plants than any other part of the globe.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_phase-out

Sweden (1980) was the first country to begin a phase-out (influenced by the Three Mile Island accident), followed by Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany (2000). Austria and Spain have enacted laws to cease construction on new nuclear power stations. Several other European countries have debated phase-outs.

Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022.[2] Italy voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[3] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors.[4] Japan’s prime minister has called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[5] Taiwan’s president did the same. Shinzō Abe, the new prime minister of Japan since December 2012, announced a plan to re-start some of the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to continue some NPP sites under construction.[6]

As of 2013, countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway remain opposed to nuclear power.[7][8] Germany and Switzerland are phasing-out nuclear power.[8][9][10] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years.[9]

Seems as if nuclear power IS "much of a problem" for the Europeans.

The kicker in your spewage was your comment on Bush speeches. After revealing that little kernel of information, it was clear that you aren't really objective at all.

HAH ! ! ! And you are?!?!? Give us a fooking break.

CO2 is essential for life on Earth.

Without it we wouldn't have plants and they couldn't use the Sun to create oxygen.

You're 60 years old, but that doesn't mean you've learned anything in your life. I actually had some looney-lefties tell me the Sun has nothing to do with the Earth's temperature. Only CO2 does.

The China Syndrome and 3-Mile Island are two of the causes I mentioned. The others came later years after the damage was already done.

Fucken idiot.

 

[daveman]

No it doesn't. You (and most of the deniers here) DO NOT understand the scientific method and DO NOT understand what the word PROVE means.

You're saying you don't HAVE to prove it; that we should just take the word of the self-labeled experts.

That's not science. Period. End of story. Take your ball and go home.

 

[Dot Com]

They realize that part of their mandate from their religion is to be good stewards & leave an inhabitable planet for future generations as opposed to today's eXtreme cons & their, "me, me, me & now, now, now" policy regarding resource allocation.

 

[mudwhistle]

They realize that part of their mandate from their religion is to be good stewards & leave an inhabitable planet for future generations as opposed to today's eXtreme cons & their, "me, me, me & now, now, now" policy regarding resource allocation.

No.....you're just spewing hateful rhetoric, nothing more.

Most of the "me first" folks are in Hollywood, and they vote Democrat.


These people live such unreal lives that when they finally have to come down to Earth and face reality they're totally repulsed.

Tune into E! Entertainment news. You'll get a dose of the way liberals live, but only the rich ones. The rest of you simply buy their records and their movies and support their candidates. Meanwhile they're busy sucking up to liberal causes and each other just to maintain their lifestyles.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Actually most of what I said was more honest and accurate than what you said.

No, it was all factually incorrect.

CO2 emissions isn't the poison you think it is.

CO2 is poisonous to all animal life (though this is completely irrelevant) and human CO2 emissions are exactly the danger to human culture that I, 97% of all climate scientists and the IPCC believe them to be.



That is complete and utter nonsense.



That is certainly a more accurate statement than the facetious nonsense in your original post.

If you say this is nonsense then you haven't been awake since the 70s when "The China Syndrome" was the big rage around America, and 3-Mile Island was a big deal. However, Europe has nukes everywhere. They don't seem to be much of a problem for them.

I am 60 years old. I was around. But if you think the opposition to nuclear power is a result of a forty year old movie, you're an idiot. Opposition to nuclear power is a result of Three Mile Island, Chernobyl and Fukushima. And Europe has closed down more nuke plants than any other part of the globe.

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_phase-out

Sweden (1980) was the first country to begin a phase-out (influenced by the Three Mile Island accident), followed by Italy (1987), Belgium (1999), and Germany (2000). Austria and Spain have enacted laws to cease construction on new nuclear power stations. Several other European countries have debated phase-outs.

Following the March 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster, Germany has permanently shut down eight of its 17 reactors and pledged to close the rest by the end of 2022.[2] Italy voted overwhelmingly to keep their country non-nuclear.[3] Switzerland and Spain have banned the construction of new reactors.[4] Japan’s prime minister has called for a dramatic reduction in Japan’s reliance on nuclear power.[5] Taiwan’s president did the same. Shinzō Abe, the new prime minister of Japan since December 2012, announced a plan to re-start some of the 54 Japanese nuclear power plants (NPPs) and to continue some NPP sites under construction.[6]

As of 2013, countries such as Australia, Austria, Denmark, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lichtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Portugal, Israel, Malaysia, New Zealand, and Norway remain opposed to nuclear power.[7][8] Germany and Switzerland are phasing-out nuclear power.[8][9][10] Globally, more nuclear power reactors have closed than opened in recent years.[9]

Seems as if nuclear power IS "much of a problem" for the Europeans.

The kicker in your spewage was your comment on Bush speeches. After revealing that little kernel of information, it was clear that you aren't really objective at all.

HAH ! ! ! And you are?!?!? Give us a fooking break.

97% of all climate scientists

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.

 

[mamooth]

The only reason CO2 was chosen is because of the endless possibilities for taxation. Even to the point that every man, woman, and child can be taxed simply for breathing.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ....

You're a delusional conspiracy 'tard. That explains why the entire planet is laughing at you.

Has no one ever broken that news to you before, that you're insane? Shame. It appears most of the people around you must be choosing to avoid you. Hence, it always gets left up to me to stage these interventions.

 

[mudwhistle]

The only reason CO2 was chosen is because of the endless possibilities for taxation. Even to the point that every man, woman, and child can be taxed simply for breathing.

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo ....

You're a delusional conspiracy 'tard. That explains why the entire planet is laughing at you.

Has no one ever broken that news to you before, that you're insane? Shame. It appears most of the people around you must be choosing to avoid you. Hence, it always gets left up to me to stage these interventions.

They laughed at me when I mentioned that Democrats were thinking of taxing Carbon, or creating a carbon tax.

The problem with you dumbass liberals is you think that everything is a joke until it becomes a reality. The progressives that are running the show always have a ready made excuse why they have to **** us out of more of our money. And that is all that this is about. Defrauding us of our cash. And you, of course, buy their bullshit, and go along with it.

 

[Crick]

But you are not predicting the future, you are claiming a fact so far out in left field its coming in from the right. You are stating that CO2 was "chosen" for its taxation possibilities, including the possibility of taxing people for breathing.

I'd have to say Mamooth has pegged you to a T: "Cuckoo, cuckoo cuckoo"

 

[Crick]

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.

Todd,

You - specifically - have been shown repeatedly that the 97% figure is based on a half a dozen different surveys and studies, more than one of which involved thousands of participants. Yet every time 97% is mentioned, you give us this same line. Is there some reason you're having such a hard time holding on to reality - holding on to the FACTS? Early onset Alzheimers perhaps?

 

[ScienceRocks]

This church should also replant tree's. That would show that they care.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes, 75 out of 77 is very impressive.

Todd,

You - specifically - have been shown repeatedly that the 97% figure is based on a half a dozen different surveys and studies, more than one of which involved thousands of participants. Yet every time 97% is mentioned, you give us this same line. Is there some reason you're having such a hard time holding on to reality - holding on to the FACTS? Early onset Alzheimers perhaps?

the 97% figure is based on a half a dozen different surveys and studies

The only one I've seen was 75/77.

 

[Crick]

Todd, please read this. Please let us know when you're done.

ANDEREGG, PRALL, HAROLD, AND SCHNEIDER, 2010
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:

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.[14]

The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[15] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study's framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[16]

FARNSWORTH AND LICHTER, 2011
In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[17][18]

LEFSRUD AND MEYER, 2012
Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[19] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[20]

The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analysing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[19] 'Regulation activists' (10%) "diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life." Skeptical of anthropogenic warming (sum 51%) they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), and 'fatalists' (17%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[19]

They found that respondents that support regulation (46%) ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[19] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[20]

JOHN COOK et al, 2013
Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did [33.6% of 11,944 or 4,013 papers], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW [ie, only 55% as many as Cook et al had found expressed no position] , 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21] Also, a reply to the criticism of the study was published, saying: "[critic] believes that every paper discussing the impacts of climate change should be placed in the 'no opinion' category".[22]

In their discussion of the results in 2007, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[23] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved on to other topics."[21]

In Science & Education in August 2013 David R. Legates (a professor of geography at the University of Delaware and former director of its Center for Climatic Research) and three coauthors reviewed the corpus used by Mr. Cook. In their assessment, "inspection of a claim by Cook et al. (Environ Res Lett 8:024024, 2013) of 97.1 % consensus, heavily relied upon by Bedford and Cook, shows just 0.3 % endorsement of the standard definition of consensus: that most warming since 1950 is anthropogenic." [24]

Craig Idso, Nicola Scafetta, Nir J. Shaviv and Nils-Axel Morner, whose research questions the alleged consensus, also are cited as Climate scientists who assert that Cook misrepresented their work.[25]

POWELL, 2013
James L. Powell, a former member of the National Science Board and current executive director of the National Physical Science Consortium, analyzed published research on global warming and climate change between 1991 and 2012 and found that of the 13,950 articles in peer-reviewed journals, only 24 rejected anthropogenic global warming. [0.17% reject AGW][26]

PLATI, 2013
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 [0.044% of papers, 0.0109% of authors, reject AGW] .[27]

REFERENCES
14) William R. L. Anderegg, James W. Prall, Jacob Harold, and Stephen H. Schneider (April 9, 2010). "Expert credibility in climate change". Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. Retrieved June 23, 2010.
15) Bodenstein, Lawrence (December 28, 2010). "Regarding Anderegg et al. and climate change credibility". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E188. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.188B. doi:10.1073/pnas.1013268108.
16) Anderegg, William R. L.; and coauthors (December 28, 2010). "Reply to Bodenstein: Contextual data about the relative scale of opposing scientific communities". Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 107 (52): E189. Bibcode:2010PNAS..107E.189A. doi:10.1073/pnas.1015419108.
17) ""Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change" at Journalist's Resource.org".
18) Stephen J. Farnsworth, S. Robert Lichter (October 27, 2011). "The Structure of Scientific Opinion on Climate Change". International Journal of Public Opinion Research. Retrieved December 2, 2011.
18) Lefsrud, L. M.; Meyer, R. E. (2012). "Science or Science Fiction? Professionals' Discursive Construction of Climate Change". Organization Studies 33 (11): 1477. doi:10.1177/0170840612463317. edit
19) "Risk Management Approach Could Motivate Climate Change Action", Lianne Lefsrud and Renate Meyer, Social Science Space, March 19, 2013
20) Cook, John; Dana Nuccitelli, Sarah A Green, Mark Richardson, Bärbel Winkler, Rob Painting, Robert Way, Peter Jacobs and Andrew Skuce (May 2013). "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature". Environmental Research Letters (IOP Publishing) 8 (2). Bibcode:2013ERL.....8b4024C. doi:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024.
21) The 97% consensus on human-caused global warming is a robust result
22) Oreskes, Naomi (2007). "The scientific consensus on climate change: how do we know we're not wrong?". Climate Change: What It Means for Us, Our Children, and Our Grandchildren. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. p. 72. Retrieved 9 August 2013. "[Scientists] generally focus their discussions on questions that are still disputed or unanswered rather than on matters about which everyone agrees"
23) Climate Consensus and ?Misinformation?: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change - Online First - Springer
24) ^
25) Joseph Bast and Roy Spencer: The Myth of the Climate Change '97%' - WSJ
26) Plait, P. (11 December 2012). "Why Climate Change Denial Is Just Hot Air". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.
27) Plait, P. (14 January 2014). "The Very, Very Thin Wedge of Denial". Slate. Retrieved 12 June 2014.

 

[Kosh]

Here is the one chart that debunks the AGW cult:

People are never told that the most powerful greenhouse gases by orders of magnitude is water vapor and clouds. When only human emitted CO2 is considered, less than one percent of the greenhouse gas potential comes from human activity. Yet, all the global warming is supposed to be attributed to it. Water vapor plays a huge role in keeping the earth warm; 70 times more powerful than the CO2 emitted by human activity. When clouds are added, CO2 becomes even less important. However, clouds not only trap heat, low elevation clouds also reflect much of the incoming solar radiation, so the sun's heat never reaches the earth's surface which cools the earth. It is this mechanism that a growing number of scientists believe is one of the primary mechanisms warming and cooling the earth.

Try as they might, the AGW religion is not based on any actual science.