More Proof the skeptics are WINNING!!

[Abraham3]

Like it is well know in the denier movement to avoid at all costs being dragged into a debate on the facts.

 

[Abraham3]

Really? Oil companies dug up these huge old gas tanks and sold them for $1, instead of scrapping them?
Please tell me more.

And tell me about the EPA and MTBE, when you get a chance.

No. They knew the regulations were going to be promulgated, so they send representatives out to their franchises and offered the tanks, which were previously leased to them, for a dollar. Then when the regulations took effect, the franchises were left with the environmental liability since they now owned the tanks. Thousands of franchises went out of business, and the oil companies took nearly complete control of the retail market. That's why you don't see mom and pop service stations anymore.

So lets see.. If the oil companies had HELD the leases and had to pay the clean up charges, these moms and pops would have been just fine --- RIGHT? No implications for loss of business or increased leasing and franchise costs --- RIGHT? Leftist logic.. No one has any risk in the game except the deep pockets..

Did it ever occur to you that the only ones CAPABLE of fixing that problem of aging tanks were the the deep pockets? AND THEY FIXED IT. They didnt plot to sabatoge those tanks, did they?

So driving all those independent retailers out of business and taking over the market was all required for them clean up the situation and was the sole reason for their largesse giving those tank away? They owned the tanks in the first place.

Certainly some of the independents would have gone out of business due to the cost of replacing those tanks. But it's not as if tanks had never been replaced before. Many would have gotten through it just fine. And there'd be some competition to keep wholesale gas prices down.

Can't have that, can we.

 

[orogenicman]

Really? Oil companies dug up these huge old gas tanks and sold them for $1, instead of scrapping them?
Please tell me more.

And tell me about the EPA and MTBE, when you get a chance.

No. They knew the regulations were going to be promulgated, so they send representatives out to their franchises and offered the tanks, which were previously leased to them, for a dollar. Then when the regulations took effect, the franchises were left with the environmental liability since they now owned the tanks. Thousands of franchises went out of business, and the oil companies took nearly complete control of the retail market. That's why you don't see mom and pop service stations anymore.

Wow! The government drove all those independents out of business. Terrible.

Don't be obtuse. You know that is not what I said.

 

[skookerasbil]

Im laughing......the k00ks have been talking about this 97% thing for 15 years!!!


But what has changed?




The answer is.........zero



CO2 Not a Control Knob that Can Fine Tune Climate says Judith Curry to US Senate - Yahoo Finance Canada


69% Say It?s Likely Scientists Have Falsified Global Warming Research - Rasmussen Reports?


Satellite data shows Arctic sea ice coverage up 50 percent | The Daily Caller


Drill, Baby, Drill: U.S. Energy Revolution Being Heard ?Round the World, Yergin Says | Daily Ticker - Yahoo Finance



EIA Report Estimates Growth of U.S. Energy Economy Through 2040 | Department of Energy



What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express


10 predictions for the world's energy future » News » OPB



People Are Losing Hope For Green Energy - Business Insider



What climate change? Fewer people than EVER believe the world is really warming up | UK | News | Daily Express





Wind Power: Germany?s Fatal Attraction ? STOP THESE THINGS





http://www.cap-press.com/pdf/Schroeder_fm.pdf





?Least extreme U.S. weather year ever?? 2013 shatters the record for fewest U.S. tornadoes ? 15% lower than previous record ? 2013 also had the fewest U.S. forest fires since 1984 | Climate Depot





Chronology of Extreme Weather





http://behindtheblack.com/behind-the-black/essays-and-commentaries/the-models-are-wrong








Take your pick................in 2014, its a Jonestown for the AGW climate crusaders. All their "consensus science" is having the same insignificant impact in the real world as it did 15 years ago. IN fact, as many of the above links illustrate, they are actually going backwards.



But don't take my word for it........go check the congressional record on climate change over the past 6 years. Nothing. Because nobody cares. Its not even debatable in 2014. Lose.










Nobody is caring about the science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Oh, you mean the made up scandal about stolen e-mails that produced NO criminal evidence? That climategate?

Yeah, the scandal that showed the scientists with the consensus, (the 97%, remember?) were so confident about the science that they had to lie, suppress and "hide the decline"

That climategate.

Any word on that MTBE issue?

Really? Hide the decline? Hilarious. Abe? Wanna take up this one?

My word on MTBE is this: It's been discussed before. Full stop.

Really, hide the decline.

Are you suffering from HFCS poisoning? LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the 97% consensus does not come from climategate. those scientists have nothing to do with that made up debacle. just because it's a title of a book doesn't make it factual or worthwhile. it was propaganda through and through to capture the imaginations of people like yourself. do a little homework if you cared

the 97% statistic comes from this very real study: Expert credibility in climate change

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

 

[orogenicman]

the 97% consensus does not come from climategate. those scientists have nothing to do with that made up debacle. just because it's a title of a book doesn't make it factual or worthwhile. it was propaganda through and through to capture the imaginations of people like yourself. do a little homework if you cared

the 97% statistic comes from this very real study: Expert credibility in climate change

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

Perhaps you could find the answer you are seeking by READING the paper to which he linked.

 

[gnarlylove]

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

Why? Do you actually care? i know you don't but i'll say it anyway it's the largest study of experts ever done (environmental biologists) who've mostly published 15+ peer-reviewed articles on climate change and it's affects on the biota. original survey was emailed to 15,000+ experts in environmental biology. if you wanted to get serious start by doing some homework. you'll be amazed to say the least. i know i was when i first started.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

the 97% consensus does not come from climategate. those scientists have nothing to do with that made up debacle. just because it's a title of a book doesn't make it factual or worthwhile. it was propaganda through and through to capture the imaginations of people like yourself. do a little homework if you cared

the 97% statistic comes from this very real study: Expert credibility in climate change

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

Perhaps you could find the answer you are seeking by READING the paper to which he linked.

Why don't you tell me?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

Why? Do you actually care? i know you don't but i'll say it anyway it's the largest study of experts ever done (environmental biologists) who've mostly published 15+ peer-reviewed articles on climate change and it's affects on the biota. original survey was emailed to 15,000+ experts in environmental biology. if you wanted to get serious start by doing some homework. you'll be amazed to say the least. i know i was when i first started.

Why? Do you actually care?

When I see silly statistics, I like to see what they really measured.
So how many out of how many?

 

[gnarlylove]

Why don't you tell me?

You realize your essentially asking him to hold your hand and read it to you? It's kinda cute in a way but is not how the US should approach climate policy. It's tolerable on a individual level but employing the same tactics by dragging our heals in the Congress explains the childish gridlock. Incapable of doing their part and disagreeing till death.

Here's a brief summary of the main arguments (there are several details necessary to understanding it inside the full article)

Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007)....

There was wide agreement that a large percentage of species will go extinct in response to the combined effects of climate change and other causes over the next 100 years, but those respondents with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 17% and 16%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge estimated a mean of 23%. There was also wide agreement among the respondents that a large percentage of species would alter their geographic ranges because of climate change over the next 100 years, but those with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 46% or 44%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses estimated a mean of 59% or 62% of species, respectively.

Conclusions:
Our survey of 2329 environmental biologists is, to our knowledge, the largest systematic survey of expert opinion about climate change and its impacts...The respondents at all levels of expertise offered fairly conservative estimates of future climate change...Still, the lower values revealed in this survey represent an alarmingly large change.

So in summary, with a overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Environmental Biologists expecting a 3.4C climate change over the next 100 years coupled with 90% skeptic material undergoing no rigorous peer review process, we can confidently say climate change skeptics and advocates live in separate worlds.

 

[gnarlylove]

it was over 2300 scientists. all of whom were selected because of their extensive publishing in many peer reviewed journals.

the fact is, it is the largest survey to date on EXPERT opinion. expert means 15+ peer reviewed articles were published by them and these highly published individuals also considered their knowledge "excellent" on the relevant topic of climate change. continuing to deny climate change is to deny tobacco has health impacts on humans. we don't know the exact how humans get ill so how can we say tobacco is the cause? same goes for climate change: there is disagreements between model projections and this turns out to question the whole science and understanding of climate change.

 

[westwall]

it was over 2300 scientists. all of whom were selected because of their extensive publishing in many peer reviewed journals.

the fact is, it is the largest survey to date on EXPERT opinion. expert means 15+ peer reviewed articles were published by them and these highly published individuals also considered their knowledge "excellent" on the relevant topic of climate change. continuing to deny climate change is to deny tobacco has health impacts on humans. we don't know the exact how humans get ill so how can we say tobacco is the cause? same goes for climate change: there is disagreements between model projections and this turns out to question the whole science and understanding of climate change.

Oh boy! Last time it was 74 out of 79. Now they're up to a whole 2300! Woo hoo! Of course there are over 31,487 American scientists alone who DISAGREE with the theory of AGW, and of that total 9,029 have PhDs.

Ask your pal orogenicman what percentage over that is

 

[gnarlylove]

you realize that has been discussed in this thread before and is agreed to be stupid by both sides.

The minimum requirement to sign that list was have a baccalaureate in a science. lots of people graduating prefer politics and money over truth. very few people on the list you mention actually hold doctorates in a scientific field related to understanding climate and certainly were not environmental biologists. that's what makes the fact they are widely published and well respected important: they know what the hell it is they are studying and you denying it all day long has no bearing on what is happening around you.

but you can keep puking up diseased info all you want, it only serves to keep people like you handicapped. c'mon you are smarter than that...can't you see the tactics employed by Exxon? do 10 minutes of research!
Kevin Grandia: The 30,000 Global Warming Petition Is Easily-Debunked Propaganda

The Petition Project website offers a breakdown of the areas of expertise of those who have signed the petition.

In the realm of climate science it breaks it breaks down as such:

Atmospheric Science (113)

Climatology (39)

Meteorology (341)

Astronomy (59)

Astrophysics (26)

So only .1% of the individuals on the list of 30,000 signatures have a scientific background in Climatology. To be fair, we can add in those who claim to have a background in Atmospheric Science, which brings the total percentage of signatories with a background in climate change science to a whopping .5%.

Along with the Exxon-backed George C. Marshall Institute, Robinson's group co-published the infamous "Oregon Petition" claiming to have collected 17,000 signatories to a document arguing against the realities of global warming.

The petition and the documents included were all made to look like official papers from the prestigious National Academy of Science. They weren't, and this attempt to mislead has been well-documented.

Along with the petition there was a cover letter from Dr. Fred Seitz (who has since died), a notorious climate change denier (and big tobacco scientist) who over 30 years ago was the president of the National Academy of Science.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't you tell me?

You realize your essentially asking him to hold your hand and read it to you? It's kinda cute in a way but is not how the US should approach climate policy. It's tolerable on a individual level but employing the same tactics by dragging our heals in the Congress explains the childish gridlock. Incapable of doing their part and disagreeing till death.

Here's a brief summary of the main arguments (there are several details necessary to understanding it inside the full article)

Expert Opinion on Climate Change and Threats to Biodiversity

Climate experts (i.e., those with a high self-assessed level of knowledge and high number of publications) estimated, on average, that temperature will increase between 3.3°C and 3.5°C over the next 100 years. These estimates are conservative relative to the range of “likely” projected temperature change by the end of the century, according to the IPCC summary for policymakers (2.4°C–6.4°C; Bernstein et al. 2007)....

There was wide agreement that a large percentage of species will go extinct in response to the combined effects of climate change and other causes over the next 100 years, but those respondents with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 17% and 16%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge estimated a mean of 23%. There was also wide agreement among the respondents that a large percentage of species would alter their geographic ranges because of climate change over the next 100 years, but those with poor self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses to climate change estimated a mean of 46% or 44%, respectively, whereas those with excellent self-assessed knowledge of climate change or biotic responses estimated a mean of 59% or 62% of species, respectively.

Conclusions:
Our survey of 2329 environmental biologists is, to our knowledge, the largest systematic survey of expert opinion about climate change and its impacts...The respondents at all levels of expertise offered fairly conservative estimates of future climate change...Still, the lower values revealed in this survey represent an alarmingly large change.

So in summary, with a overwhelming majority of peer reviewed Environmental Biologists expecting a 3.4C climate change over the next 100 years coupled with 90% skeptic material undergoing no rigorous peer review process, we can confidently say climate change skeptics and advocates live in separate worlds.

You realize your essentially asking him to hold your hand and read it to you?

You don't have to read anything to me.

97% = X/Y.

Just tell me what is X, what is Y?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

it was over 2300 scientists. all of whom were selected because of their extensive publishing in many peer reviewed journals.

the fact is, it is the largest survey to date on EXPERT opinion. expert means 15+ peer reviewed articles were published by them and these highly published individuals also considered their knowledge "excellent" on the relevant topic of climate change. continuing to deny climate change is to deny tobacco has health impacts on humans. we don't know the exact how humans get ill so how can we say tobacco is the cause? same goes for climate change: there is disagreements between model projections and this turns out to question the whole science and understanding of climate change.

it was over 2300 scientists. all of whom were selected because of their extensive publishing in many peer reviewed journals.

Great!

X/2300, so what was X?

 

[gnarlylove]

2284/2329
95% had PhDs
But the study is not really properly understood being mashed into simpleton formula.

The point is they predict a range between 3.4-3.6 C by 2100. that's climate change at precisely the level that melts polar ice caps and changes lush landscapes into desert. its an injustice to this study to purge it of it's meaning by X/Y.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

2284/2329
95% had PhDs
But the study is not really properly understood being mashed into simpleton formula.

The point is they predict a range between 3.4-3.6 C by 2100. that's climate change at precisely the level that melts polar ice caps and changes lush landscapes into desert. its an injustice to this study to purge it of it's meaning by X/Y.

2284/2329

Thanks.

I see the 2329 in your link, but I missed the 2284.
Where did you see it?

But the study is not really properly understood being mashed into simpleton formula.

Consensus, 97%!!!!

Of course it's a simpleton formula.

 

[flacaltenn]

It's all pretty irrelevent. A consensus on the type of wildly bracketed and biased work of the IPCC is no consensus at all..

If you see a poll asking these 2300 what the temperature anomaly will be in 2056 and 97% agree --- please let me know.. O'Kay???

 

[skookerasbil]

the 97% consensus does not come from climategate. those scientists have nothing to do with that made up debacle. just because it's a title of a book doesn't make it factual or worthwhile. it was propaganda through and through to capture the imaginations of people like yourself. do a little homework if you cared

the 97% statistic comes from this very real study: Expert credibility in climate change

Maybe you can answer a question?

97% was how many scientists out of how many?

Oooops Todd......they don't much like that question. The fact is never, ever, ever presented in any context.......then again, nothing the far left promotes ever is.