The skeptics keep winning!!

[skookerasbil]

Real Clear Energy has claimed that there has been no warming since 2005.

Global Warming Update

December 2024 global temperature update relative to pre-industrial

www.co2.earth

But heres the thing.........

We've been seeing these graphs for 25 years now. Where are they mattering in the real world? Youve never been able to coherently answer that question.....not once.

For a moment, lets assume your graph is accurate ( have seen similar graphs from Tommy and JC that show zero warming over the past 8 years ). But lets assume you're correct.

Where is there any hard evidence it transcends outside the realm of "science"? Show us where it is anywhere beyond a talking point? Ive been in this forum for 14 years.....same as its ever been. Its a talking point that is having very little impact on the energy landscape. And so........

Since the beginning of Obama's first term, solar/wind have skyrocketed from 5% of grid electricity to an astounding 12%. Thats 15 years.Folks need energy. Alot of it. More each year. China/India coal production continues to be MASSIVE.

Thus, the title of the thread..........

 

[Crick]

But heres the thing.........

We've been seeing these graphs for 25 years now. Where are they mattering in the real world? Youve never been able to coherently answer that question.....not once.

For a moment, lets assume your graph is accurate ( have seen similar graphs from Tommy and JC that show zero warming over the past 8 years ). But lets assume you're correct.

Where is there any hard evidence it transcends outside the realm of "science"? Show us where it is anywhere beyond a talking point? Ive been in this forum for 14 years.....same as its ever been. Its a talking point that is having very little impact on the energy landscape. And so........

Since the beginning of Obama's first term, solar/wind have skyrocketed from 5% of grid electricity to an astounding 12%. Thats 15 years.Folks need energy. Alot of it. More each year. China/India coal production continues to be MASSIVE.

Thus, the title of the thread..........

That you don't care doesn't mean jack shit to anyone. You should perhaps have titled it "Skooks thinks he keeps on winning"

 

[jc456]

That you don't care doesn't mean jack shit to anyone. You should perhaps have titled it "Skooks thinks he keeps on winning"

Care about what? That’s been my question for you since my first exchange

 

[Crick]

Care about what? That’s been my question for you since my first exchange

As far as I can see, you don't care about anything. That would include our children for the next dozen generations and all the wildlife on this planet.

 

[jc456]

As far as I can see, you don't care about anything. That would include our children for the next dozen generations and all the wildlife on this planet.

why are you skating away? Tell us what we're supposed to care about? It's your idea, no one but you can answer.

 

[Crick]

why are you skating away? Tell us what we're supposed to care about? It's your idea, no one but you can answer.

Now you're trolling again. You should worry about AGW and all its affects. Did you not catch that many years ago when you first joined this forum?

 

[jc456]

Now you're trolling again. You should worry about AGW and all its affects.

What are all the affects? Dude, you continuously skating away is not engaging.

Did you not catch that many years ago when you first joined this forum?

No. I've been asking the same question since day one, and since then you still haven't provided what the fk you're talking about.

 

[Crick]

What are all the affects? Dude, you continuously skating away is not engaging.


No. I've been asking the same question since day one, and since then you still haven't provided what the fk you're talking about.

You're being ridiculous. You have been shown thousands of articles, studies, graphs, photos, links and days worth of discussion about this very topic.

 

[jc456]

You're being ridiculous. You have been shown thousands of articles, studies, graphs, photos, links and days worth of discussion about this very topic.

That is your standard response when you haven't. Hey, Ask Frank, Tommy, Skooks, if you have ever posted one thing that shows what we're supposed to care about. Go ahead.

 

[Crick]

That is your standard response when you haven't.

It is not my standard response under any circumstances and I have no idea to what you're referring with "...when you haven't"

Hey, Ask Frank, Tommy, Skooks, if you have ever posted one thing that shows what we're supposed to care about. Go ahead.

Do you have any thread-specific content to add here? You know this is Zone 2.

 

[jc456]

It is not my standard response under any circumstances and I have no idea to what you're referring with "...when you haven't"

Well here, I asked what is it we're supposed to be concerned about? But you deflect away. Just answer the question. It must be a top of mind thing for you. Not sure why you are hemming and hawing?

 

[Crick]

Well here, I asked what is it we're supposed to be concerned about? But you deflect away. Just answer the question. It must be a top of mind thing for you. Not sure why you are hemming and hawing?

Because I and many others have told you these very things many, many, many times, which makes your posts here trolling.

 

[MisterBeale]

I agree that physics, engineering and economics are unaffected by anyone's beliefs in anything. Big Whup.

Real Clear Energy is a far right wing, Koch-funded propaganda house whose babbling is worth shit.

And as I have already proved in another thread, anything coming out of the IPCC, or any sources connected to them, can likewise not be trusted. However? You don't seem to care, you keep on posting sources connected to them.

 

[abu afak]

And as I have already proved in another thread, anything coming out of the IPCC, or any sources connected to them, can likewise not be trusted. However? You don't seem to care, you keep on posting sources connected to them.



View attachment 771063

You haven't "Proved" anything you Clown.
Much less ...

anything coming out of the IPCC, or any sources connected to them

Finding criticism on some Wack site is NOT "proving" anything you confused MAGAt.
You are too stupid and too biased to be Moderator.

Of course, NASA, NOAA, and every National and International org Agrees with AGW.
As I ACTUALLY showed many times with this Wiki link/summary:

....

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Wiki Continues

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.[137] 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.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] 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.[143]

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. 75 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:[144]

It seems that the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes.

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:[145]

(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.

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".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


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.[149] 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.[150] 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.[151]

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%.[152] 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.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

 

[skookerasbil]

You haven't "Proved" anything you Clown.
Much less ...

Finding criticism on some Wack site is NOT "proving" anything you confused MAGAt.
You are too stupid and too biased to be Moderator.

Of course, NASA, NOAA, and every National and International org Agrees with AGW.
As I ACTUALLY showed many times with this Wiki link/summary:

....

Opposing (the AGW Consensus)​

Since 2007, when the American Association of Petroleum Geologists released a revised statement,[32] No longer does Any National or International Scientific body Reject the findings of Human-induced effects on Climate Change.[31][33]

Wiki Continues

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.[137] 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.[138][139][140][141]

Dennis Bray and Hans von Storch conducted a survey in August 2008 of 2058 climate scientists from 34 countries.[142] 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.[143]

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. 75 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:[144]


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:[145]


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".[146] This study was criticised in 2016 by Richard Tol,[147] but strongly defended by a companion paper in the same volume.[148]


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.[149] 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.[150] 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.[151]

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%.[152] 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.[153]

Depending on expertise, a 2021 survey of 2780 Earth scientist showed that between 91% to 100% agreed human activity is causing climate change. Among climate scientists, 98.7% agreed, a number that grows to 100% when only the climate scientists with high level of expertise are counted (20+ papers published).[4]

Scientific consensus on climate change - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

`

But here's the thing....nobody is impressed by the 97%! They impress very few... obviously as exemplified by THIS.....

Body Blow To Activists: Whopping 82% Of Berlin's Voters Refused To Support Net Zero 2030 As Referendum Fails | ZeroHedge

Whooooops

So much....

 

[Crick]

But here's the thing....nobody is impressed by the 97%! They impress very few... obviously as exemplified by THIS.....

Body Blow To Activists: Whopping 82% Of Berlin's Voters Refused To Support Net Zero 2030 As Referendum Fails | ZeroHedge

Whooooops

So much....

A more objective report on the vote and its context.

Berliners vote down referendum on tighter climate goals

A referendum in Berlin on Sunday that would have bound the city to strive to be climate neutral by 2030 has failed, the city's mayor Franziska Giffey said in a statement.

www.reuters.com

 

[skookerasbil]

LoL...the energy transition is the energy equivalent to "pixie dust"...

The Energy Transition Is A Delusion Indeed | ZeroHedge

ZeroHedge - On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero

www.zerohedge.com

 

[Crick]

From ChatGPT (who I am beginning to like)

Me: Is the energy transition (from fossil fuels to wind and solar) a delusion?

ChatGPT: No, the energy transition from fossil fuels to renewable energy sources like wind and solar is not a delusion. In fact, many countries around the world are already making significant progress in transitioning to renewable energy.
There are several reasons why countries are making this shift. One of the most pressing is the need to address climate change. Burning fossil fuels releases greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, which contributes to global warming and climate change. Renewable energy sources, on the other hand, produce little to no greenhouse gas emissions, which makes them a crucial tool in the fight against climate change.
Another reason for the transition is the fact that renewable energy sources are becoming increasingly cost-competitive with fossil fuels. The cost of solar and wind power has dropped significantly over the past decade, making them a more attractive option for many countries.
Of course, there are still challenges associated with the transition to renewable energy. One of the biggest is the fact that wind and solar power are intermittent sources of energy, meaning they are not always available when needed. This makes it necessary to invest in energy storage technologies and smart grid infrastructure to ensure that renewable energy can be reliably integrated into the power grid.
Overall, however, the transition to renewable energy is not a delusion. It is a necessary and urgent shift that is already underway in many parts of the world.