Global warming?

[marinera]

How would you characterize a non-expert who is skeptical of something that enjoys a consensus of over 97% of scientists from the relevant field?

Mind you, consensus can bed measured a number of different ways. The 97% figure is perhaps the most conservative (pun intended).

Just by expressing this skepticism, they are necessarily claiming to have a better understanding of climatology than the vast majority of climatologists.

Do you have a link the the actual paper that shows the '97% consensus'? The full paper. Thanks.

 

[Oxnard]

Do you have a link the the actual paper that shows the '97% consensus'? The full paper. Thanks.

The 97% figure comes from a metastudy on the number of climatology papers supporting anthropogenic climate change:

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

If you want to count climatologists rather than papers, only four express objections to the climate model, and their objections are fairly minor.

 

[Oxnard]

If you want more papers on the same topic of consensus, there are a lot in the footnotes here:

Scientific opinion on climate change - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Oxnard]

There's a reason anti-science sources prefer to cite people like McKitrick or Monckton.

 

[marinera]

The 97% figure comes from a metastudy on the number of climatology papers supporting anthropogenic climate change:

Skeptical Science Study Finds 97% Consensus on Human-Caused Global Warming in the Peer-Reviewed Literature

If you want to count climatologists rather than papers, only four express objections to the climate model, and their objections are fairly minor.

No dude. I want a link to the full paper, with the name of the experts and their works. Not because I want to read it, because I want that you read it, than check if what the poll tells is true.

 

[marinera]

By the way, do you know that skepticalscience is the internet organ-house of AGW sellers, don't you? Why is it called 'skeptical' if it is run by believers?

 

[rbkwp]

Clean energy becoming unstoppable

Coal phases out in wealthier countries first

What does that look like on a country-level basis? The world's first coal superpower, the U.K., now produces less power from coal than it has since at

Source: BNEF
The reason solar-power generation will increasingly dominate: It’s a technology, not a fuel. As such, efficiency increases and prices fall as time goes on. What's more, the price of batteries to store solar power when the sun isn't shining is falling in a similarly stunning arc.

www.bloomberg.com: Wind and Solar Are Crushing Fossil Fuels

wow for some reason i find this quite incredible geesus ..
crisis alright

Venezuela calls for drastic measures in face of electricity crisis

Published on Apr 8, 2016
For the next two months, Venezuelans will begin their weekends on Fridays. The government's decision is an effort to curb power consumption as the main hydro-electric dam hits record lows.President Maduro also asked Venezuelans to lessen their use of machine clothes driers, and for women to use hair driers "only for special occasions".Virginia Lopez reports from Caracas.

see what stealth wealth will do to keep its dollars flowing into there coffers ..

Exxon and Shell Double Down to Defeat Climate Change Legislation
Nika Knight, Common Dreams | April 8, 2016 9:09 am | Comments
The dark channels through which corporations influence legislation are notoriously hard to trace, but a new detailed report estimates that the world’s largest fossil fuel companies are spending upwards of $500 million per year to obstruct climate laws.

Published Thursday by the UK-based non-profit InfluenceMap, thereport looked at two fossil fuel giants (ExxonMobil and Royal Dutch Shell) and three trade lobbying groups, discovering that all together the five companies spend $114 million dollars a year to defeat climate change legislation.

More significantly, InfluenceMap says, “Extrapolated over the entire fossil fuel and other industrial sectors beyond, it is not hard to consider that this obstructive climate policy lobbying spending may be in the order of $500m annually.”

ecowatch.com: Exxon and Shell Double Down to Defeat Climate Change Legislation

for what its worth, as in interest value, to someone ha
makes a 'little' bit of sense to me ha ..

Earth's spin axis shifted by melting ice sheets and changes of water on land
ABC Science
By Kylie Andrews

Posted about 5 hours ago

PHOTO: The location of the north pole was drifting towards Canada during the 20th century but has now changed direction.(Getty images)

Shifts in the spin axis of our planet are not only being driven by melting ice sheets but also changes in the relative amount of water stored on the continents, researchers have discovered.

Earth spins from east to west, which is why we have a night and day.

The spin axis — which is the line through the planet from one pole to another — constantly wobbles.

For 100 years after the wobble was first measured in 1899, the spin axis drifted in one direction as the North Pole headed southwards towards Hudson Bay in Canada.

Dr Karl: Global warming shifts spin

By burning huge quantities of fossil fuels, we humans have actually tipped the Earth off its axis — by a tiny amount.

www.abc.net.au: Earth's spin axis shifted by melting ice sheets, water changes

and more of the same
equally as selfich and bad to the core ..

Big Oil Gearing Up to Battle Electric Vehicles
Ryan Martel, Ceres | April 7, 2016 2:18 pm | Comment
Last week Tesla unveiled the Model 3, a mass market, affordableelectric vehicle with a starting price of $35,000 and a two hundred mile range.

In just over five days, more than 276,000 people put down $1,000 to reserve their own Model 3, signaling that American appetite for electric vehicles (EVs) is on the rise.

Electric Vehicle at charging station.
That’s good news because greenhouse gas emissions from transportation are growing faster than in any other sector in the U.S. and account for about 30 percent of the total. A major shift to electrified vehicles in the transportation sector is necessary to give us a fighting chance to meet our climate goals.

ecowatch.com: Big Oil Gearing Up to Battle Electric Vehicles

pretty cool whicever way you look at it, no doubt about that ..

Removal of 4 Dams to Reopen 420 Miles of Historic Salmon Habitat on Klamath River
Emily J. Gertz, TakePart | April 7, 2016 12:44 pm | Commrint

It’s been 115 years since the first of six dams began regulating flows on the Klamath River, which runs from the high desert of eastern Oregon to the northern California coast.

By 2020 most of them will be gone—and the river’s once-abundantsalmon runs hopefully on the rebound—if two new agreements between tribal, state and federal governments, the operator and other stakeholders work out as planned.

ecowatch.com: Removal of 4 Dams to Reopen 420 Miles of Historic Salmon Habitat on Klamath River

Dam removal on the @klamathriver will reopen 420 miles of historic fish habitat. #UnDamTheKlamath

and would you believe, DISTRIBUTION huh
NGOs the way to go, Govty should compulsorily support all NGOs ha, dreaming!!!


Poor squirrels. Mother nature is cruel, isn't she?

yes agree poor things
glad you take the time to read and esap express same ..

 

[Oxnard]

By the way, do you know that skepticalscience is the internet organ-house of AGW sellers, don't you? Why is it called 'skeptical' if it is run by believers?

Oooh, a conspiracy!

Let's see, the overwhelming majority of climatologists, plus the overwhelming majority of all scientists, from many different nations, and many different funding sources, most of whom have tenure and will get the same money no matter what conclusions they arrive at are all part of a conspiracy to... what, exactly?

What is this vast international conspiracy supposed to be doing? I was never clear on that part.

But on the other side, we have a small number of people, most without any real scientific expertise, from one particular political ideology, most of whom are funded by the oil or coal industry, most of who would lose their jobs if they did not arrive at certain conclusions, these are the opinions we should trust?

Ross McKitrick is one of the most respected, most cited "scientist" from people who believe in the same conspiracy theory you do, and Ross McKitrick's most celebrated scientific paper got its conclusion backwards because he got degrees and radians confused. It is on the basis of work by men of this quality that we should conclude that nearly all of science is part of a vast international conspiracy to... wait, what is the conspiracy trying to accomplish?

 

[Oxnard]

I can appreciate skepticism as much as the next guy, but I don't have a subscription to any of the relevant science journals, so I can't possibly read all 12,000 scientific papers that were part of the survey.

Have you read all 12,000 papers?

 

[marinera]

So you haven't read the paper according to which there is 97% consensu on AGW and which is the sole thing you base your belief that AGW, Oxnard. Do you think that is a rational belief?

By the way, the references of that clownesque 'study' don't require any subscriptions, they are in clear; it is just not immediate to find them (guess why?). But since you are so much brighter than me you'll find them, since I have found them.

 

[Oxnard]

So you haven't read the paper according to which there is 97% consensu on AGW and which is the sole thing you base your belief that AGW, Oxnard. Do you think that is a rational belief?

By the way, the references of that clownesque 'study' don't require any subscriptions, they are in clear; it is just not immediate to find them (guess why?). But since you are so much brighter than me you'll find them, since I have found them.

It's hardly just this one study.

I provided you with a link that included many footnotes to other studies.

There is also the fact that virtually every popularizer of science in the public states that this is the consensus opinion of climatologists.

I don't know what else I can do to demonstrate to you that this is the overwhelming consensus of the relevant field.

On what basis do you conclude that the overwhelming majority of climatologists (not to mention all scientists around the world) are part of a vast international conspiracy? You still haven't explained to me what the goal of this sinister conspiracy is.

 

[Oxnard]

Here are a bunch more papers for you to ignore:

anthropogenic climate change consensus - Google Scholar

 

[Oxnard]

From the above link:

science.sciencemag.org: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change | Science

Summary
Policy-makers and the public who are not members of the relevant research community have had to form opinions about the reality of global climate change on the basis of often conflicting descriptions provided by the media regarding the level of scientific certainty attached to studies of climate. In this Essay, Oreskes analyzes the existing scientific literature to show that there is a robust consensus that anthropogenic global climate change is occurring. Thus, despite claims sometimes made by some groups that there is not good evidence that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities, the scientific community is in overwhelming agreement that such evidence is clear and persuasive.

 

[Oxnard]

www.pnas.org: Expert credibility in climate change

Abstract
Although preliminary estimates from published literature and expert surveys suggest striking agreement among climate scientists on the tenets of anthropogenic climate change (ACC), the American public expresses substantial doubt about both the anthropogenic cause and the level of scientific agreement underpinning ACC. A broad analysis of the climate scientist community itself, the distribution of credibility of dissenting researchers relative to agreeing researchers, and the level of agreement among top climate experts has not been conducted and would inform future ACC discussions. Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field surveyed here support the tenets of ACC 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.

 

[marinera]

It's hardly just this one study.

....

The 97% figure is by this study, and it is the one you cited. Now you are admitting that you can't even found the references, right?

 

[Oxnard]

A fair number of the papers are examinations of the media's coverage of climate change, in an effort to understand why so much of the public rejects the consensus opinion.

 

[Oxnard]

The 97% figure is by this study, and it is the one you cited. Now you are admitting that you can't even found the references, right?

The study examined 12,000 papers. 97% of the papers were in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

You also ignored all the other links I provided.

 

[marinera]

The study examined 12,000 papers. 97% of the papers were in favor of anthropogenic climate change.

You also ignored all the other links I provided.

How do you know if you haven't checked the references?


FYI, even if it was true that 97% of 12,000 papers were in favor of AGW, that doesn't mean that 97% of scientists agreed on AGW. I think you can understand the difference.

Another question for you : is the author ot he 'study' a scientist?

 

[Oxnard]

The 97% figure is by this study, and it is the one you cited. Now you are admitting that you can't even found the references, right?

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

For crying out loud. I provided a large number of citations, all of which said the same thing: that anthropogenic climate change is the consensus opinion.

Now will you please explain to me the motives of this conspiracy theory you are positing?

 

[Oxnard]

How do you know if you haven't checked the references?


FYI, even if it was true that 97% of 12,000 papers were in favor of AGW, that doesn't mean that 97% of scientists agreed on AGW. I think you can understand the difference.

Another question for you : is the author ot he 'study' a scientist?

No.