The claim of a 97% scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, originating from a 2013 study by John Cook et al., has been widely criticized as methodologically flawed and misleading. The study analyzed 11,944 abstracts, finding that only 4,014 (33.6%) addressed anthropogenic global warming, with 97% of those suggesting some human contribution; however, only 64 (0.53%) of all abstracts explicitly stated humans were the primary cause of warming

5 hours ago, Alan Zweibel said:

You know who isn[t betting on SMRs? Utility companies. The continuing plummet in renewable and battery costs means that SMRs are extremely unlikely ever to be competitive. In order to promote them, some states are passing laws that make the costs of construction to be paid for by increased rates, no matter how much they run over costs. And nuclear power has a history of cost overruns. 

 

Utility companies and their profits could be decimated by nuclear power, with the right governance, of course.

 

Battery production is not environmentally friendly.

11 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

The claim of a 97% scientific consensus on human-caused climate change, originating from a 2013 study by John Cook et al., has been widely criticized as methodologically flawed and misleading. The study analyzed 11,944 abstracts, finding that only 4,014 (33.6%) addressed anthropogenic global warming, with 97% of those suggesting some human contribution; however, only 64 (0.53%) of all abstracts explicitly stated humans were the primary cause of warming

 

Sounds great but even I would like to see a link for that one!

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

27 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

https://www.thegwpf.org/content/uploads/2014/09/Warming-consensus-and-it-critics1.pdf

 

Thanks. I replied but was attacked by my mouse and lost it all.

 

Need a beer.

30 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Utility companies and their profits could be decimated by nuclear power, with the right governance, of course.

 

Battery production is not environmentally friendly.

I don't understand how utility companies and their profits could be decimated by nuclear power for 2 reason: who's going to run them and who is going to do the financial wizardy to make them competitive in pricing. Even that source I cited quoting the authority that is building a complex of SMRs says that renewables are competitive in pricing.

 

As for battery production not being environmentally friendly, you think uranium mining is? Do you believe that fossil fuels are environmentally friendly?

It comes as no surprise that people who belong to one cult join others. It's a personality flaw that makes them weak and vulnerable to charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

 

"Climate Hoax" types are invariably MAGA, because their messiah called it Chinese or Democratic or leftists hoax.

 

None is a climatologist and almost none is a scientist. All are sheeple, led by the siren song of the bloated moron.

Congrats@Yagoda Mate you seemed to have stirred up the nose ringers & blue hair supporters who got suckered in the pipe dream scare tactic by the far left..

'The world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change,' Ocasio-Cortez says"

 

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2019/01/22/ocasio-cortez-climate-change-alarm/2642481002/

30 minutes ago, Harrisfan said:

https://climatechangedispatch.com/97-articles-refuting-the-97-consensus/

Even if Hulme's critique is correct, I followed the first link to this quote from him:

"The conclusions of Cook et al. are thus unfounded. There is no doubt in my mind that the literature on climate change overwhelmingly supports the hypothesis that climate change is caused by humans. I have very little reason to doubt that the consensus is indeed correct."

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301421514002821?via%3Dihub

To make it clear: Hulme has a problem with Cook's methodology. Not with the fact that a consensus exists. And later studies only confirm this:

 

And of course as time goes on and the predictions of the doubters fail to materialize, the consensus has grown stronger:

Consensus revisited: quantifying scientific agreement on climate change and climate expertise among Earth scientists 10 years late

 We find that agreement on anthropogenic global warming is high (91% to 100%) and generally increases with expertise. Out of a group of 153 independently confirmed climate experts, 98.7% of those scientists indicated that the Earth is getting warmer mostly because of human activity such as burning fossil fuels. Among those with the highest level of expertise (independently confirmed climate experts who each published 20+ peer reviewed papers on climate change between 2015 and 2019) there was 100% agreement that the Earth is warming mostly because of human activity.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2774

 

Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature

 We identify four sceptical papers out of the sub-set of 3000, as evidenced by abstracts that were rated as implicitly or explicitly sceptical of human-caused global warming. In our sample utilizing pre-identified sceptical keywords we found 28 papers that were implicitly or explicitly sceptical. We conclude with high statistical confidence that the scientific consensus on human-caused contemporary climate change—expressed as a proportion of the total publications—exceeds 99% in the peer reviewed scientific literature.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966

9 minutes ago, Wingate said:

"Climate Hoax" types are invariably MAGA, because their messiah called it Chinese or Democratic or leftists hoax.

 

None is a climatologist and almost none is a scientist. All are sheeple, led by the siren song of the bloated moron.

 

Agree that Trump was maybe mouthing off too much about the climate issue. 

 

But maybe it's not economically feasible or practical for logistical reasons to move entirely away from fossil fuels.

 

Climate change science may or may not be accurate. I'm not a scientist, so I admit it's over my pay grade.

 

Air pollution is still a big problem. And take a walk on a beach in Thailand and look at all the crap that washes up on the shore. Environment needs to be cleaned up.

 

12 minutes ago, Wingate said:

It comes as no surprise that people who belong to one cult join others. It's a personality flaw that makes them weak and vulnerable to charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

 

"Climate Hoax" types are invariably MAGA, because their messiah called it Chinese or Democratic or leftists hoax.

 

None is a climatologist and almost none is a scientist. All are sheeple, led by the siren song of the bloated moron.

Maybe your cult of believing the new world order is more representative of the steeple?

And the cult members are the true thinkers.

35 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

Maybe your cult of believing the new world order is more representative of the steeple?

And the cult members are the true thinkers.

All those climate scientists are also card carrying members of the Illuminati?

25 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

I don't understand how utility companies and their profits could be decimated by nuclear power for 2 reason: who's going to run them and who is going to do the financial wizardy to make them competitive in pricing. Even that source I cited quoting the authority that is building a complex of SMRs says that renewables are competitive in pricing.

 

As for battery production not being environmentally friendly, you think uranium mining is? Do you believe that fossil fuels are environmentally friendly?

 

A few SMR's could replace thousands of wind and solar generation points. The cost of of nuclear and solar/wind projects based on output are similar but the long-term operation and maintenance of the latter two is higher, at least due to their high number and wide range geographically, especially in the marine environment. I am referring to the UK here.

 

I favour a state regulated and managed power generating authority, using existing power grids and generating companies but, as I already implied, that body would need to control all responsibly, especially environmentally and economically. The welfare of the people, the country and environment should come first, for a change. Commercial interest should be limited but not killed - this, of course, would mean cheaper power, which would slash the existing crippling profits (and taxes) - so the backlash from big corporations and political actors and the "blob" would be huge. So, yes, it will probably never happen, but you asked and that's the way I would have it.  

 

All mining creates environmental risks, which need to be managed and mainly are, these days. The responsible disposal of batteries and turbines is far harder to manage, though, mainly due to thousands or millions being used all over the world, often in countries without good environmental practices. 

7 hours ago, connda said:

Until the Democrats take the House, Senate, and Oval Office.  Then the polar ice-cap will be melting again and the world was we know it will end in 5 years if we don't give all of our money to billionaires who trade carbon credits.

What side will you be on ,the one's protesting in the street ,as they form chains of  human glued hands to the freeway or common sense folks that don't protest everyday  for what seems like ten years? You ain't seen nothin yet my friend ,give them a inch they'll want a kilometer.

1 hour ago, Wingate said:

It comes as no surprise that people who belong to one cult join others. It's a personality flaw that makes them weak and vulnerable to charlatans and snake oil salesmen.

 

"Climate Hoax" types are invariably MAGA, because their messiah called it Chinese or Democratic or leftists hoax.

 

None is a climatologist and almost none is a scientist. All are sheeple, led by the siren song of the bloated moron.

 

Boolshute.

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

The cost of of nuclear and solar/wind projects based on output are similar but the long-term operation and maintenance of the latter two is higher, at least due to their high number and wide range geographically, especially in the marine environment. I am referring to the UK here.

 

I told you before that telling a lie many times, still doesn't make it a truth.

 

 

39 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

All those climate scientists are also card carrying members of the Illuminati?

They say what their employers tell them to say if they need money to live.

I see you as more of a lizard person, David Icke may be right.

3 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

They say what their employers tell them to say if they need money to live.

Sure. It's a massive conspiracy with scientists from all over the world trying to put one over on a fraud. The only intellectual dishonesty here is typified by the likes of you who take the easy way out to dismiss information that is unpalatable.

7 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

I told you before that telling a lie many times, still doesn't make it a truth.

 

 

 

AI/Google wind/solar propaganda would never lie, eh?

1 minute ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Sure. It's a massive conspiracy with scientists from all over the world trying to put one over on a fraud. The only intellectual dishonesty here is typified by the likes of you who take the easy way out to dismiss information that is unpalatable.

It was always my job to hide stuff and manipulate the UK population.

And it made me loads of money, and a totally secure career.

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

AI/Google wind/solar propaganda would never lie, eh?

 

Feel free to counter it with a link from a credible source

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

It was always my job to hide stuff and manipulate the UK population.

And it made me loads of money, and a totally secure career.

 

Yet another profession you had when living in the UK? That makes it 10 by now.

 

Oh wait, I recall that just 2 days ago you posted in another topic that you lie a lot, and think it is normal to do so.

2 minutes ago, CallumWK said:

 

Feel free to counter it with a link from a credible source

 

Like yours? 

r

2 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Like yours? 

 

In case you didn't notice, but yes we know MAGA's don't care about credible sources, AI provides links for each of their claims

6 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

 

AI/Google wind/solar propaganda would never lie, eh?

Gee, saying propaganda would never lie?  Do I have to explain why that's a clueless comment?

Next, you're going to tell us that all the reports about how renewables are dominating new power plant construction is a lie. Or that developing nations aren't flocking to its use. It's all a massive conspiracy and you've got the evidence to prove it but you're not ready to share it with us yet?

26 minutes ago, Alan Zweibel said:

Gee, saying propaganda would never lie?  Do I have to explain why that's a clueless comment?

Next, you're going to tell us that all the reports about how renewables are dominating new power plant construction is a lie. Or that developing nations aren't flocking to its use. It's all a massive conspiracy and you've got the evidence to prove it but you're not ready to share it with us yet?

 

Although that comment was not addressed to you, it looks you need me to explain my sarcastic comment, instead of the other rude guy.

 

Of course renewables are dominating new power plant construction - the consensus of the highest powers has been reached - there is little else allowed or approved by many of our wonderful governments just now. You're right - I don't have evidence to prove any dark conspiracy - access to that would cost the same as a small wind farm. 😉

1 hour ago, Alan Zweibel said:

All those climate scientists are also card carrying members of the Illuminati?

its good you havent lose your sense of humor

3 hours ago, Purdey said:

Between 97% and 99.9% of climate scientists agree that climate change is happening and that human activity is the primary cause. Multiple studies, including those that analyzed peer-reviewed scientific literature, have found this overwhelming consensus, with some research indicating a consensus greater than 99%. 

 

Carry on "doing your own research."

 

 

Cook rhymes with book.

12 minutes ago, nauseus said:

 

Although that comment was not addressed to you, it looks you need me to explain my sarcastic comment, instead of the other rude guy.

 

Of course renewables are dominating new power plant construction - the consensus of the highest powers has been reached - there is little else allowed or approved by many of our wonderful governments just now. You're right - I don't have evidence to prove any dark conspiracy - access to that would cost the same as a small wind farm. 😉

Yes all over the world that's the case. And not only power plant construction. But individuals who are installing solar power in their homes and making money on it as it repays for itself an investment. And all those people in developing economies who are flocking to solar power. It's all part of a big conspiracy. And if only you had the you could bust the whole conspiracy wide open. It's a pity that such an investigation is also too expensive for investigation by fossil fuel companies or petro-states who as we know are perpetually short of cash since such a revelation would be a major boost for their future profitability. Maybe you could start a movement to pass the hat around and lend them what they might need to finally bust Big Green wide open.