UK energy future

[pjclarke]

Majority of scientific work is done in an environment where funding is from government and disagreeing on the topic is career suicide

That's quite a conspiracy theory you got going there. The planet has a way of showing up people who try and obscure the reality of what is going on. But hey, here's a neat plot idea for a thriller: 97% of the world's climate scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Speaking of which, the oil companies have R&D budgets larger than many Governments, and faced with the prospect that their product is changing the planetary atmosphere and posing a potential disaster embarked on extensive research during the 1970s and 80s. And then they stopped, and turned their attention to mitigation and adaptation.

Here's the evidence: http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/gl...0s_forward.pdf

And a discussion of a legal probe into whether Exxon revealed all it knew to investors: Everything You Need to Know About the Exxon Climate Change Probe - Bloomberg Business

[LucidDementia]

97% of the world's climate scientists

You're really buying this? Evidence or GTFO.

[DodgyAgent]

That's quite a conspiracy theory you got going there. The planet has a way of showing up people who try and obscure the reality of what is going on. But hey, here's a neat plot idea for a thriller: 97% of the world's climate scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.

Speaking of which, the oil companies have R&D budgets larger than many Governments, and faced with the prospect that their product is changing the planetary atmosphere and posing a potential disaster embarked on extensive research during the 1970s and 80s. And then they stopped, and turned their attention to mitigation and adaptation.

Here's the evidence: http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/gl...0s_forward.pdf

And a discussion of a legal probe into whether Exxon revealed all it knew to investors: Everything You Need to Know About the Exxon Climate Change Probe - Bloomberg Business

Funny that 97% of the world's scientists enjoy a pre eminence of position thanks to the perpetuation of the negative effects (which is all we ever hear) of climate change. It is also strange that so few are actually being paid to investigate ways to intervene and slow down climate change. In a parallel universe we now have every security service official, policeman, military man and woman pleading for more funds whilst at the same time alarming us all about terrorism.
People cannot resist the temptation to enrich themselves and control others by instilling fear. Scientists do not need to collude through some nefarious network they collude because they are rewarded to come to the conclusions their employers want them to come to.

[d000hg]

Funny that 97% of the world's scientists enjoy a pre eminence of position thanks to the perpetuation of the negative effects (which is all we ever hear) of climate change.

That's rather a self-serving argument. Or perhaps I mean self-perpetuating.

[pjclarke]

You're really buying this (The 97% consensus)? Evidence or GTFO.

Firstly - the fact that a majority of experts agree does not make them correct: however it does put the onus on those disagreeing to come with 'extraordinary evidence'. As I wrote above, if there was a convincing counter-case the oil companies would have found it.

Starting with the literature, science historian Naomi Oreskes performed a literature search using the keywords 'climate change' for the decade ending 2003 and categorised the abstracts returned into those endorsing, not relevant, or rejecting the consensus. She found zero rejections.

The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change

In 2009, Doran et al surveyed 10,000 Earth scientists and briefly, asked if they believed global temperatures had risen and human activity was a significant factor. When they looked at the subset actively researching climate science, they found 97% agreement with the proposition.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/1...9EO030002/epdf

In 2010 Anderegg et al attempted an assessment of the relative expertise of climate scientists of various shades of opinion and found

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,

Expert credibility in climate change

In 2013, Cook et al performed a similar literature review to Oreskes and found 'Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming.*

They also polled the authors of the papers and discovered 'Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus.*


Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature - IOPscience

Away from the peer-reviewed arena, James Powell keeps an eye on the literature



Home | James Lawrence Powell

And 100% of scientific organisations of standing have issued position statements endorsing the conclusions of the IPCC.

You might also want to check out the Vision Prize: Vision Prize Findings

[LucidDementia]

Firstly - the fact that a majority of experts agree does not make them correct: however it does put the onus on those disagreeing to come with 'extraordinary evidence'.

I'm not even going past your first line, sorry.

The suggestion that "you have to prove us wrong because we say so" flies in the face of every scientific and legal structure on the planet.

All James Powell's so-called evidence results from a stacked deck premise:

Powell defined his judgement this way: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming. Articles that merely claimed to have found some discrepancy, some minor flaw, some reason for doubt, I did not classify as rejecting global warming. Articles about methods, palaeoclimatology, mitigation, adaptation, and effects at least implicitly accept human-caused global warming and were usually obvious from the title alone.”

Anyway, I'm really not interested in debating this with you. You keep believing, I'll keep watching all the predictions of the IPCC not coming true.

[pjclarke]

The suggestion that "you have to prove us wrong because we say so" flies in the face of every scientific and legal structure on the planet.

That's not what I said, proof is very rare in science, what we have is the balance of evidence. When the world's experts have examined the evidence and overwhelming come to a particular conclusion, it put the onus on those disagreeing to provide extraordinary counter-evidence.



You asked for evidence supporting the 97% figure, I supplied it in peer-reviewed spades, you applied selective blindness. I agree, further 'debate' is likely fruitless.

[EternalOptimist]

You're really buying this? Evidence or GTFO.

The actual number of scientists who believe that CO2 has anywhere near the sensitivity to produce 2c is about 50/50

The actual number of papers on the science behind the theory is tiny

the 24k thousand papers that the eco-loons trumpet on about, are 24k alarmist papers talking about the imagined impacts of the imaginary results from a computer model.

you couldn't make it up. except they do

[pjclarke]

The actual number of scientists who believe that CO2 has anywhere near the sensitivity to produce 2c is about 50/50

The actual number of papers on the science behind the theory is tiny

the 24k thousand papers that the eco-loons trumpet on about, are 24k alarmist papers talking about the imagined impacts of the imaginary results from a computer model.

you couldn't make it up. except they do

The first sentence has no scientific meaning (sensitivity is a property of the climate, not any one forcing) I'd ask for some supporting evidence for these cooky assertions, but I'd be wasting electrons.

[d000hg]

The actual number of scientists who believe that CO2 has anywhere near the sensitivity to produce 2c is about 50/50

Source?