UK energy future

[LucidDementia]

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.

No, you chose to parrot off bulltulip.
You say you have 97%. Well I have a petition signed by 31000 scientists saying you're full of it.

So show me your 970,000 on the other side. Please, I beg you.

[EternalOptimist]

Source?

oh wow. I could be linking all day. try this for starters
if you don't like it, I'll get you some more


and before the walking tape recorder comes along, don't bother with the ad-homs pj.
put the script down and go and have a lie down

[LucidDementia]

Clicky

"When a well-packaged web of lies has been sold gradually to the masses over generations, the truth will seem utterly preposterous and its speaker a raving lunatic."

[d000hg]

Your argument seems to be that because everyone believes it, it's not true.

It can be the case that it's as you say, but that's all. You DO need to demonstrate why the accepted theories are flawed. That IS science.

[LucidDementia]

Your argument seems to be that because everyone believes it, it's not true.

It can be the case that it's as you say, but that's all. You DO need to demonstrate why the accepted theories are flawed. That IS science.

Not at all, my argument is in fact that the "accepted theories" are not in fact accepted theories.
Please see the link above.

More likely my position is: just because everyone (or nearly everyone) believes a lie does not make it the truth.

[pjclarke]

oh wow. I could be linking all day. try this for starters
if you don't like it, I'll get you some more


and before the walking tape recorder comes along, don't bother with the ad-homs pj.
put the script down and go and have a lie down

Not sure an op-ed in the WSJ counts as a primary source.

Demolished here. The Wall Street Journal denies the 97% scientific consensus on human-caused global warming | Dana Nuccitelli | Environment | The Guardian

[pjclarke]

No, you chose to parrot off bulltulip.
You say you have 97%. Well I have a petition signed by 31000 scientists saying you're full of it.

So show me your 970,000 on the other side. Please, I beg you.

No source, but from the number I guess you're referring to the Oregon Petition project.

Global Warming Petition Project

Which has been running since 1998 and has gathered 31,000 signatories in that time. Impressive, until you realise it was not constrained to relevant disciplines. It can be and was, signed by medical doctors, vetinarians, metallurgists,botanists, agronomists and organic chemists. The largest group of signatories are actually engineers (16,000 signed vs approx 2 million engineers working in the US).

Bob Grumbine runs the numbers

More Grumbine Science: Petitioning on climate, part 1

You may find the views of chiropractors persuasive, but as it stands it represents less than 0.1% of those who could have signed. It also suffered from validation issues, over the years it has been 'signed' by the cast of M*A*S*H, the Spice Girls, Star Wars characters etc.

In 2001, when the petition had 1,400 names Scientific American attempted to contact a sample of the climate scientists on the list:

Of the 26 we were able to identify in various databases, 11 said they still agreed with the petition —- one was an active climate researcher, two others had relevant expertise, and eight signed based on an informal evaluation. Six said they would not sign the petition today, three did not remember any such petition, one had died, and five did not answer repeated messages

It was also deceptive, the petition was sent out with a bogus scientific paper tricked out to look a publication of the US National Academy of Science, causing the NAS to put out this message:

The NAS Council would like to make it clear that this petition has nothing to do with the National Academy of Sciences and that the manuscript was not published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences or in any other peer-reviewed journal

Which may have taken in the odd dentist or two. One wonders why, if their case is so strong, they needed to stoop to such tactics?

[LucidDementia]

As it's so wide open to abuse finding your 970,000 should be a walk in the park then, no?

I notice you've totally ignored the link above which utterly demolishes James Powell's horsetulip.
So here it is again http://www.populartechnology.net/201...h-results.html
As I said, pointless debating.

Any sane person should see it's all a load of tosh when they find out the proposed solution is..... taxation.
Never mind the unbelievable arrogance in the assumption that we, part of the planet, are killing the planet.

Anyway, must dash, need to fire up the V12 and go get some Single Malt while it's on offer.

[pjclarke]

As it's so wide open to abuse finding your 970,000 should be a walk in the park then, no?

Shorter version: most of the signatories were not actually scientists, and represent a vanishingly small fraction of those who could have signed.

I notice you've totally ignored the link above which utterly demolishes James Powell's horsetulip.

'Popular Technology' is in fact a one-man-band blog. Notwithstanding insignificant methodological nitpicks, he presents a total of 5 papers which, in his view, should have been included as 'rejections'. I don't see that these change much, especially as they either do not actually reject the consensus or have been rebutted by later studies.

e.g. Lindzen and Choi 2011 - Party Like It's 2009

[EternalOptimist]

if you're a greenie and you go to a forum and have trouble working out who the crazy eco-loon-zealot is,
it's you