Why we should listen to the 97%

[westwall]

From a different article in Wikipedia - a little more information on several of these surveys, including the one I posted that found less support among engineers and geoscientists.

Anderegg, Prall, Harold, and Schneider, 2010

(i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC (Anthropogenic Climate Change) 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.[14]
The methodology of the Anderegg et al. study was challenged in PNAS by Lawrence Bodenstein for "treat[ing] publication metrics as a surrogate for expertise". He would expect the much larger side of the climate change controversy to excel in certain publication metrics as they "continue to cite each other's work in an upward spiral of self-affirmation".[15] Anderegg et al. replied that Bodenstein "raises many speculative points without offering data" and that his comment "misunderstands our study’s framing and stands in direct contrast to two prominent conclusions in the paper.[16]
Farnsworth and Lichter, 2011

In an October 2011 paper published in the International Journal of Public Opinion Research, researchers from George Mason University analyzed the results of a survey of 489 scientists working in academia, government, and industry. The scientists polled were members of the American Geophysical Union or the American Meteorological Society and listed in the 23rd edition of American Men and Women of Science, a biographical reference work on leading American scientists. Of those surveyed, 97% agreed that that global temperatures have risen over the past century. Moreover, 84% agreed that "human-induced greenhouse warming" is now occurring. Only 5% disagreed with the idea that human activity is a significant cause of global warming.[17][18]
Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012

Lefsrud and Meyer surveyed members of the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of Alberta (APEGA), a professional association for the petroleum industry in Alberta. The aims of the study included examining the respondents' "legitimation of themselves as experts on 'the truth', and their attitudes towards regulatory measures."[19] Writing later, the authors added, "we surveyed engineers and geologists because their professions dominate the oil industry and their views on climate change influence the positions taken by governments, think tanks and environmental groups."[20]
The authors found that 99.4% agreed that the global climate is changing but that "the debate of the causes of climate change is particularly virulent among them." Analysing their responses, the authors labelled 36% of respondents 'comply with Kyoto', as "they express the strong belief that climate change is happening, that it is not a normal cycle of nature, and humans are the main or central cause."[19] Others they labelled 'nature is overwhelming' (24%), 'economic responsibility' (10%), 'fatalists' (17%) and 'regulation activists' (5%). Respondents giving these responses disagreed in various ways with mainstream scientific opinion on climate change, expressing views such as that climate change is 'natural', that its causes are unknown, that it is harmless, or that regulation such as that represented by Kyoto Protocol is in itself harmful.[19]
They found that respondents that support regulation ('comply with Kyoto' and 'regulation activists') were "significantly more likely to be lower in the organizational hierarchy, younger, female, and working in government", while those that oppose regulation ('nature is overwhelming' and 'economic responsibility') were "significantly more likely to be more senior in their organizations, male, older, geoscientists, and work in the oil and gas industry".[19] Discussing the study in 2013, the authors ask if such political divisions distract decision-makers from confronting the risk that climate change presents to businesses and the economy.[20]

John Cook et al, 2013

Cook et al examined 11,944 abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature from 1991–2011 that matched the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. They found that, while 66.4% of them expressed no position on anthropogenic global warming (AGW), of those that did, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. They also invited authors to rate their own papers and found that, while only 35.5% rated their paper as expressing no position on AGW, 97.2% of the rest endorsed the consensus. In both cases the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position was marginally increasing over time. They concluded that the number of papers actually rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research.[21]

In their discussion of the results, the authors said that the large proportion of abstracts that state no position on AGW is as expected in a consensus situation,[22] adding that "the fundamental science of AGW is no longer controversial among the publishing science community and the remaining debate in the field has moved to other topics."[21]

It says a lot about your particular delusion that you still believe those "studies" when the actual fact is every one of them has been eviscerated in the scientific community. Only the "faithful" believe them now...

 

[daveman]

Speaking of that 97%...

Lomborg On Cook 97% Survey: ?It Turns Out They Have Done Pretty Much Everything Wrong?

Here’s what Lomborg writes (my emphasis, links shortened):

Ugh. Do you remember the “97% consensus”, which even Obama tweeted?
Turns out the authors don’t want to reveal their data.

It has always been a dodgy paper (iopscience.iop.org/article). Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)….

The paper looks at 12,000 papers written in the last 25 years (see here, the paper doesn’t actually specify the numbers, notalotofpeopleknowthat/).

It ditches about 8,000 papers because they don’t take a position. They put people who agree into three different bins — 1.6% that explicitly endorse global warming with numbers, 23% that explicitly endorse global warming without numbers and then 74% that “implicitly endorse” because they’re looking at other issues with global warming that must mean they agree with human-caused global warming.

Voila, you got about 97% (actually here 98%, but because the authors haven’t released the numbers themselves, we have to rely on other quantative assessments).

Notice, that *nobody* said anything about *dangerous* global warming; this meme simply got attached afterwards (by Obama and many others).

Now, Richard Tol has tried to replicate their study and it turns out they have done pretty much everything wrong. And they don’t want to release the data so anyone else can check it. Outrageous.

They don't want to release their data to be checked?

Yep, that's climate "science", all right.

The Scientific Method says......release all data and challenge anyone to find your results incorrect.

Climatology says......hide all data and do not release ANY OF IT lest our secrets are found out.

Climate science simply isn't real science. And there is no one who can credibly claim otherwise.

 

[Abraham3]

The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.

 

[westwall]

The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.

Bullshit. The scientific method DEMANDS THAT ALL DATA AND METHODOLOGY BE RELEASED SO THAT ANYONE CAN TEST YOUR WORK. That's how you test for repeatability.

Climatologists are the only "scientists" who won't release their work.

I know what that means.... clearly you don't care...

 

[IanC]

The key to the problem of releasing data (if there really is such a problem) is the name Richard Tol.

Oh my god. You are besmiching the name of an honest scientist simply because he finally has had enough of the bullshit that passes for peer reviewed science?

It has been a long time since I pased out ant rep but this definitely deserves a neg rep. You, sir are an ass.

 

[Saigon]

Todd -

Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?

I really don't think the concept is THAT hard to grasp, somehow.

Having spent 10 pages deriding subsidies before suddenly changing tack and denying that they exist is as total a capitulation as I recall seeing from any poster on this board.

My hope was that both yourself and BriPat might wise up to the fact that the inevitable result of basing your opinions purely and simply on politics (Wind = bad. Coal = good!) is exactly this.

You will never make a solid point on this topic while you view it purely and simply in terms of politics.

Each form of energy needs to be evaluated in terms of its potential production, its cost and emissions. Why can't you do that?

What do you gain out of this pretence that coal is somehow the magic bullet?

 

[bripat9643]

Todd -

Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?

I really don't think the concept is THAT hard to grasp, somehow.

Having spent 10 pages deriding subsidies before suddenly changing tack and denying that they exist is as total a capitulation as I recall seeing from any poster on this board.

My hope was that both yourself and BriPat might wise up to the fact that the inevitable result of basing your opinions purely and simply on politics (Wind = bad. Coal = good!) is exactly this.

You will never make a solid point on this topic while you view it purely and simply in terms of politics.

Each form of energy needs to be evaluated in terms of its potential production, its cost and emissions. Why can't you do that?

What do you gain out of this pretence that coal is somehow the magic bullet?

How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet? Let's drop all subsidies right now. Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat-

How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet?

I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV.

Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.

Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Todd -

Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?

I really don't think the concept is THAT hard to grasp, somehow.

Having spent 10 pages deriding subsidies before suddenly changing tack and denying that they exist is as total a capitulation as I recall seeing from any poster on this board.

My hope was that both yourself and BriPat might wise up to the fact that the inevitable result of basing your opinions purely and simply on politics (Wind = bad. Coal = good!) is exactly this.

You will never make a solid point on this topic while you view it purely and simply in terms of politics.

Each form of energy needs to be evaluated in terms of its potential production, its cost and emissions. Why can't you do that?

What do you gain out of this pretence that coal is somehow the magic bullet?

However, many of the "subsidies" available to the oil and gas industries are general business opportunity credits, available to all US businesses (particularly, the foreign tax credit mentioned above). The value of industry-specific subsidies in 2006 was estimated by the Texas State Comptroller to be just $3.06 billion – a fraction of the amount claimed by the Environmental Law Institute.[9] The balance of federal subsides, which the comptroller valued at $7.4 billion, came from shared credits and deductions, and oil defense (spending on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, energy infrastructure security, etc.).

Thanks for trying, it was very entertaining.
If you ever find a specific fossil fuel subsidy you'd like to discuss, please let me know, pussy.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat-

How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet?

I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV.

Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.

Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.

No., subsidies should be ended immediately. "The mix of solutions we need" shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market. That's how you end up with expensive boondoggles.

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

 

[Saigon]

BriPat -

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it.

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

Todd -

For the 5th time now - do you support subsidies to energy companies? Yes or no?

 

[Abraham3]

BriPat-

How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet?

I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV.

Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.

Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.

No., subsidies should be ended immediately. The mix of solutions we need shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market.

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between someone with principles and a hack.

Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear? Do you reject subsidies given to farmers? Dairymen? Miners? Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

 

[westwall]

BriPat -

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it.

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

That is due to government and enviro whacko interference. Remove those impediments and things start getting built again. It is YOU who doesn't understand industry. I have no problem funding research into alternatives. I have a huge problem funding companies that can only exist because of public support. And further, any "green" company that kills more critters than the fossil fuel industry is not green.

 

[westwall]

BriPat-



I've never heard anyone suggest they were. Most countries will need a workhorse like hydro, nuclear or perhaps solar thermal or tidal in addition to wind or solar PV.



Subsidies should be phased out as soon as economies have the mix of 21st century solutions they need.

In most countries that should happen quite soon - but obviously the US is so far behind that you will need more subsidies while you play catch-up.

No., subsidies should be ended immediately. The mix of solutions we need shouldn't be determined by government interference in the market.

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between someone with principles and a hack.

Do you reject the subsidies given coal, oil, gas and nuclear? Do you reject subsidies given to farmers? Dairymen? Miners? Lumber companies?

Or is it just alternative energy sources?

Let me ask you something. Do you LIKE the smell of half burnt hydrocarbons? Do you like the appearance of strip mines? Do you like seeing miners "coughing out pieces of their broken lungs"?

The amount of money being invested in alternative energy technologies is not going to break the bank and, if nothing else, will get us cleaner air, water and land. The vehemence of your objection seems unjustified, even by the reasons you give.

Yes. ALL government subsidies should be eliminated. Research is one thing. Being forced to pay extra taxes so that that money can be given to companies that would otherwise fail completely is a joke. If they have a product that they can deliver in a timely efficient manner then they don't NEED a subsidy.

 

[Foxfyre]

Todd -

Three days later, you are still trying to recover from the shock of the nuclear and coal industries receiving three times as much in subsidies as renewables do?

I really don't think the concept is THAT hard to grasp, somehow.

Having spent 10 pages deriding subsidies before suddenly changing tack and denying that they exist is as total a capitulation as I recall seeing from any poster on this board.

My hope was that both yourself and BriPat might wise up to the fact that the inevitable result of basing your opinions purely and simply on politics (Wind = bad. Coal = good!) is exactly this.

You will never make a solid point on this topic while you view it purely and simply in terms of politics.

Each form of energy needs to be evaluated in terms of its potential production, its cost and emissions. Why can't you do that?

What do you gain out of this pretence that coal is somehow the magic bullet?

How about if we drop the pretense that wind and solar are the magic bullet? Let's drop all subsidies right now. Would any of the holy brethren of the Church of Anthropogenic Global Warming support that? You know they wouldn't because wind and solar would immediately drop from sight. They cannot survive without subsidies. That's the bottom line.

But has been clearly documented over the last 24 hours or so on this thread, there are no oil subsidies as such, at least as the anti-big oil company people believe such subsidies exist. "Oil subsidies" are fuel credits--not payments--for farmers to produce food or ethanol, a green religionist favorite that the government mandates MUST be added to motor fuels. "Oil subsidies" are government purchases for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve critical for our national security if our oil supplies were disrupted. "Oil subsidies" are government programs to help low income families with utility bills.

I haven't been able to find any subsidies the federal government is giving to coal companies. Both oil and coal receive the same kinds of tax treatment that all businesses recieve, except that oil in some cases gets less of a break than other businesses. The worst the green police can find to accuse coal of is that the government doesn't charge coal companies enough for exploration and mining on public lands.

And even if you believe the non-subsidies listed above must be counted as government subsidies, oil and coal receive roughly $2.5 billion in tax breaks while green energy intiatives are receiving $16 billion plus in tax breaks, loan guarantees, and direct payments.

And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful. The government should be devoting all that money to finding ways to use coal in clean and environmentally friendly ways instead of trying to pretend that wind and solar are the magic bullets that will save us all.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Tax deductions aren't subsidies, that's a perversion of the word especially since the Green Companies get direct cash subsidies

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama started the "oil and gas subsidies" lie and the Progressive Collective immediately parroted it back

 

[Saigon]

Foxfyre -

The issue here is not so much subsidies to oil (which is less often used to produce electricity), but to nuclear and coal (which are used to produce electricity). As my sig line shows, subsidies to nuclear and coal have often run to three times the amounts paid to renewables.

Do you agree or disagree with those subsidies?

And why should we promote coal? Because it is the most plentiful, easily accessible fuel on Earth making it cheap and easily useful.

I'm afraid this is simply nonsense - clean coal is amongst the most expensive forms of electricity production we have.

 

[Foxfyre]

As for the voices of reason out there:

The British Royal Society recently released a statement that “Any public perception that the science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect.” This contradicts its own former president. If the science isn't settled, there can hardly ever have been 'consensus' on the issue among scientists in the first place.

Richard Tol Phd had the guts to expose the IPPC for its questionable conclusions. He has argued that while one section of the report (produced by Working Group 2) “appears to have systematically overstated the negative impacts of climate change,” another section (written by Working Group 3) appears to have systematically understated the costs to society associated with emissions reduction. He has a very impressive resume in both the fields of economics and climate research. And even as the opinions of dissenters are omitted from the final analysis, eyebrows are raised at the lack of credential of some of those included. Lisa Alexander and Laurens Bouwer lacked PhDs in their fields when they were primary writers of the 2001 and 2007 IPCC assessment reports. Bouwer still doesn't have one.

So Abraham's manipulated 97% should not guide us in this issue. Certainly not more than voices of reason that strongy contradict that "97%". And it is important that we get this very right before we hand over our liberties, choices, options, and opportunities to people who have demonstrated they are not completely honest, are not scientifically objective, and who don't have our best interests at heart.

 

[bripat9643]

BriPat -

You defend subsidies. I don't. That's the difference between following a principle and being a hack.

No, it's the difference between understanding the industry, and not understanding it.

The idea that you understand industry better than me is laughable. I have a degree in mechanical engineering. I do consulting work for fortune 1000 companies that deals with their manufacturing processes. Currently I'm doing some work for Ford Motor Company that deals with how they determine the factory capacity they need. How much more immersed in "industry" can you get?

I work in industry every day. You're a journalist, and you don't know diddly squat about industry. Everything you post demonstrates the grossest naivete about how industry functions.

It's almost impossible for any company to finance to building of a nuclear power station, tidal enegy project or solar thermal plant without some form of incentive or guarantee. Hence, feed-in tariffs have their place.

That's because they are money losing propositions. The power they produce is vastly more expensive and vastly less dependable. You're just admitting that these forms of power can't compete in the marketplace.

Beyond that, I tend to agree with you that the free market should operate without ongoing manipulation.

No, you don't agree with that. You propose government manipulation of the market every time you post on the subject.