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

[skookerasbil]

THE bottom line on all of this........

Conjecture and speculation is gay.

The facts are these.......fossil fuels are going to be around for decades even if 97 trillion scientists claim man-made warming is happening. Every single reputable projection says it, including President Obama's EIA report earlier this year. In 2040, renewables are going to be responsible for 11% of energy production.......AT BEST........that's ELEVEN PERCENT!!!


Know that that means??


The "science" doesn't matter for shit. Anybody who draws any other conclusion..........is a mental case by any civilized social standard. I may walk down the Main Street of my town, stark naked except for sandals and shake a banana at people, scream at people that the floods are coming and be convinced Im a hero. My behavior would be legitimate.......but only to the AGW alarmist crowd. How many people on Main Street are going to join me? The AGW k00ks will tell you........"EVERYBODY!!!".


See what we are dealing with in here s0ns????

 

[Crick]

There is the one chart that clearly illustrates you don't know what you're talking about. You've tried this exact same post before, not two weeks ago I'd guess. You were roundly trashed then. Did you think no one would remember.

Humans are responsible for 120/400ths, or 30% of the CO2 in the Earth's atmosphere and similar amounts dissolved in our oceans, lakes and rivers as well as sequestered in our soil. Not 1%, but 30%.

 

[Crick]

THE bottom line on all of this........
Conjecture and speculation is gay.

The facts are these.......fossil fuels are going to be around for decades even if 97 trillion scientists claim man-made warming is happening. Every single reputable projection says it, including President Obama's EIA report earlier this year. In 2040, renewables are going to be responsible for 11% of energy production.......AT BEST........that's ELEVEN PERCENT!!!

Know that that means??

The "science" doesn't matter for shit. Anybody who draws any other conclusion..........is a mental case by any social standard.

Skooks, you ignorant, lazy bigot.

If there were no AGW - if human combustion of fossil fuels weren't causing global warming, what percentage of our 2040 energy budget would be coming from wind, solar and other renewables? 0.5%? 0.1%? Less?

 

[skookerasbil]

THE bottom line on all of this........
Conjecture and speculation is gay.

The facts are these.......fossil fuels are going to be around for decades even if 97 trillion scientists claim man-made warming is happening. Every single reputable projection says it, including President Obama's EIA report earlier this year. In 2040, renewables are going to be responsible for 11% of energy production.......AT BEST........that's ELEVEN PERCENT!!!

Know that that means??

The "science" doesn't matter for shit. Anybody who draws any other conclusion..........is a mental case by any social standard.

Skooks, you ignorant, lazy bigot.

If there were no AGW - if human combustion of fossil fuels weren't causing global warming, what percentage of our 2040 energy budget would be coming from wind, solar and other renewables? 0.5%? 0.1%? Less?

Nobody cares s0n except the Disney crowd.







Like I said........fantasy based speculation is highly gay......but if it works for you s0n, by all means go for it!!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

Solar is good!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

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.

Thanks for the links et al.

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.

[33.6% of 11,944 or 4,013 papers], 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are contributing to global warming.

Only a warmer can turn 33.6% into the consensus position.

I'll point out more errors in the rest of your post later.

 

[Crick]

If you want to find "more errors", you'll first have to find one.

Feel free to gripe about these surveys and studies. All deniers do. Just please stop responding to "97%" with "74 out of 77".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you want to find "more errors", you'll first have to find one.

Feel free to gripe about these surveys and studies. All deniers do. Just please stop responding to "97%" with "74 out of 77".

It's 75 out of 77.

So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 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”.

That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

That Scientific Global Warming Consensus...Not! - Forbes

 

[westwall]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

WRONG​

From Wikipedia's article on "The Scientific Method"

Formulation of a question: The question can refer to the explanation of a specific observation, as in "Why is the sky blue?", but can also be open-ended, as in "How can I design a drug to cure this particular disease?" This stage also involves looking up and evaluating evidence from previous experiments, personal scientific observations or assertions, and/or the work of other scientists. If the answer is already known, a different question that builds on the previous evidence can be posed. When applying the scientific method to scientific research, determining a good question can be very difficult and affects the final outcome of the investigation.[19]

Hypothesis: An hypothesis is a conjecture, based on knowledge obtained while formulating the question, that may explain the observed behavior of a part of our universe. The hypothesis might be very specific, e.g., Einstein's equivalence principle or Francis Crick's "DNA makes RNA makes protein",[20] or it might be broad, e.g., unknown species of life dwell in the unexplored depths of the oceans. A statistical hypothesis is a conjecture about some population. For example, the population might be people with a particular disease. The conjecture might be that a new drug will cure the disease in some of those people. Terms commonly associated with statistical hypotheses are null hypothesis and alternative hypothesis. A null hypothesis is the conjecture that the statistical hypothesis is false, e.g., that the new drug does nothing and that any cures are due to chance effects. Researchers normally want to show that the null hypothesis is false. The alternative hypothesis is the desired outcome, e.g., that the drug does better than chance. A final point: a scientific hypothesis must be falsifiable, meaning that one can identify a possible outcome of an experiment that conflicts with predictions deduced from the hypothesis; otherwise, it cannot be meaningfully tested.

Prediction: This step involves determining the logical consequences of the hypothesis. One or more predictions are then selected for further testing. The more unlikely that a prediction would be correct simply by coincidence, then the more convincing it would be if the prediction were fulfilled; evidence is also stronger if the answer to the prediction is not already known, due to the effects of hindsight bias (see also postdiction). Ideally, the prediction must also distinguish the hypothesis from likely alternatives; if two hypotheses make the same prediction, observing the prediction to be correct is not evidence for either one over the other. (These statements about the relative strength of evidence can be mathematically derived using Bayes' Theorem.)

Testing: This is an investigation of whether the real world behaves as predicted by the hypothesis. Scientists (and other people) test hypotheses by conducting experiments. The purpose of an experiment is to determine whether observations of the real world agree with or conflict with the predictions derived from an hypothesis. If they agree, confidence in the hypothesis increases; otherwise, it decreases. Agreement does not assure that the hypothesis is true; future experiments may reveal problems. Karl Popper advised scientists to try to falsify hypotheses, i.e., to search for and test those experiments that seem most doubtful. Large numbers of successful confirmations are not convincing if they arise from experiments that avoid risk.[21] Experiments should be designed to minimize possible errors, especially through the use of appropriate scientific controls. For example, tests of medical treatments are commonly run as double-blind tests. Test personnel, who might unwittingly reveal to test subjects which samples are the desired test drugs and which are placebos, are kept ignorant of which are which. Such hints can bias the responses of the test subjects. Furthermore, failure of an experiment does not necessarily mean the hypothesis is false. Experiments always depend on several hypotheses, e.g., that the test equipment is working properly, and a failure may be a failure of one of the auxiliary hypotheses. (See the Duhem-Quine thesis.) Experiments can be conducted in a college lab, on a kitchen table, at CERN's Large Hadron Collider, at the bottom of an ocean, on Mars (using one of the working rovers), and so on. Astronomers do experiments, searching for planets around distant stars. Finally, most individual experiments address highly specific topics for reasons of practicality. As a result, evidence about broader topics is usually accumulated gradually.

Analysis: This involves determining what the results of the experiment show and deciding on the next actions to take. The predictions of the hypothesis are compared to those of the null hypothesis, to determine which is better able to explain the data. In cases where an experiment is repeated many times, a statistical analysis such as a chi-squared test may be required. If the evidence has falsified the hypothesis, a new hypothesis is required; if the experiment supports the hypothesis but the evidence is not strong enough for high confidence, other predictions from the hypothesis must be tested. Once a hypothesis is strongly supported by evidence, a new question can be asked to provide further insight on the same topic. Evidence from other scientists and experience are frequently incorporated at any stage in the process. Depending on the complexity of the experiment, many iterations may be required to gather sufficient evidence to answer a question with confidence, or to build up many answers to highly specific questions in order to answer a single broader question.

This model underlies the scientific revolution.[22] One thousand years ago, Alhazen demonstrated the importance of forming questions and subsequently testing them,[23] an approach which was advocated by Galileo in 1638 with the publication of Two New Sciences.[24] The current method is based on a hypothetico-deductive model[25] formulated in the 20th century, although it has undergone significant revision since first proposed (for a more formal discussion, see below).
*******************************************
Show us where this text says a hypothesis must be PROVEN.

I'll go with Nobel Prize winning physicist and widely known genius Richard Feynman on the Scientific Method. Wiki is not a credible source. Never has been, never will be.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYPapE-3FRw]Feynman on Scientific Method. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[westwall]

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.

Then why are you trying to alter the null hypothesis?

 

[Crick]

There is a mountain of evidence disproving the null hypothesis re anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. Thus the current task (for those who believe things aren't completely settled) is test AGW by attempting to falsify it. Such attempts have been tried for over two decades without success. AGW may be considered a widely accepted theory and valid science. If you think otherwise, falsify it. If you cannot do so, admit it like someone with some testicles to call their very own.

 

[westwall]

There are no proofs in the natural sciences.

The validity of an appeal to authority does not rely on anyone's ability to prove anything.

When are you either going to falsify AGW or admit that you cannot?

When are YOU going to prove it exists? That's how science works you know...you make the theory and then you have to support it. That's how the null hypothesis works. Of course I wouldn't expect an anti science denier like you to understand the fundamentals...

You are wrong.
The scientific method is to propose a hypothesis and then test it.
You don't have to support it...you have to test it.

Correct. And you have to make it available TO EVERYBODY so they can test your work...

Amazingly enough...it takes a court order to try and get them to release ANYTHING.



Court Orders University of Virginia to Produce Documents of Dr. Michael Mann to release documents and raw data pertaining to the discredited global-warming myth. | Wichita Observer

 

[Kosh]

There is a mountain of evidence disproving the null hypothesis re anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. Thus the current task (for those who believe things aren't completely settled) is test AGW by attempting to falsify it. Such attempts have been tried for over two decades without success. AGW may be considered a widely accepted theory and valid science. If you think otherwise, falsify it. If you cannot do so, admit it like someone with some testicles to call their very own.

More proof that AGW religious scripture trumps actual science every time..

Where is that link to the datasets with source code that proves CO2 controls climate?

 

[westwall]

A professor in one of my classes back in 1981 or so made the comment that petroleum was far too valuable a material resource (ie a source material with which to make the stuff on your list) to burn it simply for the heat it gives off.

He was correct. However, the fact remains that fossil fuels are still the most economical method of powering our cars and our power plants. If the first world nations were to adopt "renewables" right now, and stop using fossil fuels there would be a billion dead people within a year. And 3 billion dead within 5 years.

That is a simple fact. The wet dream of you progressives to adopt a carbon tax does nothing more than penalize poor people and make rich people even richer. It does nothing to regulate pollution in the slightest.

 

[westwall]

If you want to find "more errors", you'll first have to find one.

Feel free to gripe about these surveys and studies. All deniers do. Just please stop responding to "97%" with "74 out of 77".

He just did. Cooks paper was summarily demolished with facts within a week of its presentation. Further it was shown that Cook had lied about numerous papers that he ascribed as having a position supporting AGW when the authors claimed quite the opposite.

So Cook is both a liar and a fraud.

 

[westwall]

There is a mountain of evidence disproving the null hypothesis re anthropogenic CO2 and global warming. Thus the current task (for those who believe things aren't completely settled) is test AGW by attempting to falsify it. Such attempts have been tried for over two decades without success. AGW may be considered a widely accepted theory and valid science. If you think otherwise, falsify it. If you cannot do so, admit it like someone with some testicles to call their very own.

Really? Show us three.

 

[daveman]

If you want to find "more errors", you'll first have to find one.

Feel free to gripe about these surveys and studies. All deniers do. Just please stop responding to "97%" with "74 out of 77".

He just did. Cooks paper was summarily demolished with facts within a week of its presentation. Further it was shown that Cook had lied about numerous papers that he ascribed as having a position supporting AGW when the authors claimed quite the opposite.

So Cook is both a liar and a fraud.

Of course. He's a climate "scientist".

 

[westwall]

If you want to find "more errors", you'll first have to find one.

Feel free to gripe about these surveys and studies. All deniers do. Just please stop responding to "97%" with "74 out of 77".

He just did. Cooks paper was summarily demolished with facts within a week of its presentation. Further it was shown that Cook had lied about numerous papers that he ascribed as having a position supporting AGW when the authors claimed quite the opposite.

So Cook is both a liar and a fraud.

Of course. He's a climate "scientist".

Actually, no....he's the comic book editor.

 

[Crick]

there is a mountain of evidence disproving the null hypothesis re anthropogenic co2 and global warming. Thus the current task (for those who believe things aren't completely settled) is test agw by attempting to falsify it. Such attempts have been tried for over two decades without success. Agw may be considered a widely accepted theory and valid science. If you think otherwise, falsify it. If you cannot do so, admit it like someone with some testicles to call their very own.

really? Show us three.

3​

 

[hjmick]

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

Get back to me when they all give up their fossil fuel burning internal combustion engines...

Then I will be impressed.

Until then, they are all just a bunch of hypocrites...