"Climate Finance" is a bigger business than oil and military combined!

a reply to: pl3bscheese

Pollution IS a problem . . . but I don't like that politicians feel they need to use Climate Change as an excuse to tackle pollution.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

That is your opinion.

Care to cite sources that back up this claim?(opinion pieces are NOT sources)

You will likely get a lot of stars and flags. Denying climate change has become quite trendy here.

P.S.,

Here is a link that breaks down where the 97% comes from:

www.skepticalscience.com...

What's it take to get 97% if you're cook? Classify reviews inaccurately, ask questions in order to get consensus, plus start a blog that will validate the work you do. Cook is funny, as is the 97% number people toss around.

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

That is your opinion.

Care to cite sources that back up this claim?(opinion pieces are NOT sources)

You will likely get a lot of stars and flags. Denying climate change has become quite trendy here.

P.S.,

Here is a link that breaks down where the 97% comes from:

www.skepticalscience.com...

What's it take to get 97% if you're cook? Classify reviews inaccurately, ask questions in order to get consensus, plus start a blog that will validate the work you do. Cook is funny, as is the 97% number people toss around.

Hmmm...

If that's the case, it makes you wonder why 97% of the scientific community haven't come out and called it BS.

So far it's just people on the Internet.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

That is your opinion.

Care to cite sources that back up this claim?(opinion pieces are NOT sources)

You will likely get a lot of stars and flags. Denying climate change has become quite trendy here.

P.S.,

Here is a link that breaks down where the 97% comes from:

www.skepticalscience.com...

What's it take to get 97% if you're cook? Classify reviews inaccurately, ask questions in order to get consensus, plus start a blog that will validate the work you do. Cook is funny, as is the 97% number people toss around.

Hmmm...

If that's the case, it makes you wonder why 97% of the scientific community haven't come out and called it BS.

So far it's just people on the Internet.

How often do we read follow ups. We had some major deniers being classified as being on board with this, some of the people counted as the 97% are the mosted hated scientists in the world because of their stance. . But most like things people will go based on what they agree with. All good. I think even the 12,000 studies they reviewed were small percentage of overall. Could be wrong.

97% is amusing

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

Actually, a lot of scientists . . .

www.breitbart.com...

yournewswire.com...

www.youtube.com...

. . . and over 9000 with PhDs:

www.petitionproject.org...

In addition to Freeman Dyson, the creator of The Weather Channel, and may others. . .

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

So you think a right wing opinion piece is a valid source of information? Also that opinion piece makes no mention of climate fear mongering being a trillion dollar business.

This thread is worthy of the hoax or disinformation bin.

You think the Center for American Progress is a right wing outfit?

As progressives, we believe America should be a land of boundless opportunity, where people can climb the ladder of economic mobility. We believe we owe it to future generations to protect the planet and promote peace and shared global prosperity.
And we believe an effective government can earn the trust of the American people, champion the common good over narrow self-interest, and harness the strength of our diversity.

Ummm, just because you don't like the conclusion they drew doesn't mean they are automatically right wing.

At the risk of sounding obvious...


The 97% only encompasses Climate Scientists...


Just for future reference.

Hell, you get a star and flag from me for sure.

It didn't take that long to round up the whole herd and have them gang up on you.

A few more of the ATS " were globally screwed" players and you will have a full house.

I love how they high five each other.

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs

I wouldn't even go that far. Some of the papers they concluded supported the "consensus" were done by noted skeptics.

a reply to: ketsuko

And they matched the criteria for the study, whether they like it or not.

Clean energy subsidies in the US are 39B/year while fossil fuel subsidies are 550B/year.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: ketsuko

And they matched the criteria for the study, whether they like it or not.

But then the study is cited everywhere as proof that scientists claim there is definite Man Made Global Warming. The criterion used to determine what studies were chosen to fall into the so-called "consensus" essentially took their words out of context. Had they been asked if they believe in MMGW, they would have said no or said any that exists is not a problem.

You see, there are some who say that the earth was warmer in the past and that it was not a problem. Also there are those who say that any effect we might have are minimal compared to natural sources of the same.

a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

Pretty much "on the money" as the World Bank scammers would say.

originally posted by: Kali74
Clean energy subsidies in the US are 39B/year while fossil fuel subsidies are 550B/year.

Calling them fossil fuel subsidies is incorrect, that would mean the government is paying them money to produce. The government is not. Instead, they are at most receiving things like tax breaks or credits, same as you and I can for buying government preferred goods or services.

We actually are paying subsidies to prop up "clean" energy like ethanol, wind and solar in order to make them competitive with fossil fuel and other similar sources. In fact, Big OIl is getting in on the clean energy sector in order to get that money. Why not?

a reply to: ketsuko

It's perfectly correct. Completely writing off drilling expenses, using depletion allowances to cover bum wells dating back to when the industry began, compensating for market fluctuations as well as massive domestic production tax deductions... well maybe we should call it tax payer covered operation costs? That's on top of picking up the tab for most of their boo-boo's. Then there's the wars we wage for them... oops we don't do that, right?

Back to the Cook et al paper and the denier papers included:

Confused Contrarians Think they are Included in the 97%

There have been a number of contrarians claiming that they are part of the 97% consensus, which they believe is limited to the position that humans are causing some global warming. The first error in this argument is in ignoring the fact that the data collected in Cook et al. (2013) included categories that quantify the human contribution, as Andrew Montford and the GWPF recently did, for example.

The second error has been made by individuals claiming they're in the 97%, but failing to actually check the data. For example, Roy Spencer claimed in testimony to US Congress that he is included in the 97% consensus. Since we made all of our data available to the public, you can see our ratings of Spencer's abstracts here. Five of his papers were captured in our literature search; we categorized four as 'no opinion' on the cause of global warming, and one as implicitly minimizing the human influence. Thus Spencer's research was included in the fewer than 3 percent of papers that either rejected or minimized the human contribution to global warming. Bjorn Lomborg made a similar error, claiming:

"Virtually everyone I know in the debate would automatically be included in the 97% (including me, but also many, much more skeptical)."

In reality Lomborg is included neither in the 97+% nor the less than 3% because as far as we can tell, he has not published any peer-reviewed climate research, and thus none of his writings were captured in our literature search. The 97% is a consensus of climate science experts, and that, Lomborg is not.

Nir Shaviv took the opposite approach, claiming he was wrongly included in the 97%. Though Shaviv also admitted that Cook et al. correctly classified his abstracts based on their content, but claimed that he worded the text in a way to slip it past the journal reviewers and editors.

"I couldn’t write these things more explicitly in the paper because of the refereeing, however, you don’t have to be a genius to reach these conclusions from the paper."

However, Shaviv, Spencer, and all other authors were invited to participate in the self-ratings process that resulted in the sae 97% consensus conclusion.
Tol's Rejected Comment

Richard Tol has also advanced various criticisms of Cook et al. (2013). It's worth noting that Tol does not dispute the existence of the consensus, writing:

"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."

Tol has nevertheless criticized the methods applied during the Cook et al. survey. For example, he has argued that the literature search should have been conducted with Scopus rather than the Web of Science in order to capture more papers, but also that fewer papers should have been included in the survey in order to focus on those specifically researching the causes of global warming. Tol has also applied various statistical tests comparing the abstract ratings to the author self-ratings, but these tests are invalid because the two phases of the survey considered different information (abstracts only vs. full papers) and are thus not comparable.

In fact, when we released the self-rating data, we explicitly discussed the difference between the two datasets and how the difference was actually instructive. As John Cook wrote,

"That's not to say our ratings of abstracts exactly matched the self-ratings by the papers' authors. On the contrary, the two sets measure different things and not only are differences expected, they're instructive."

Ultimately Tol submitted his criticisms to Environmental Research Letters as a comment, but the submission was summarily rejected by the editor who described it as a speculative opinion piece that does not identify any clear errors that would call the paper's conclusions into question.

In short, the 97% consensus has passed peer-review, while Tol's criticisms have not. Moreover, all of Tol's criticisms only apply to the abstract ratings, while the self-ratings also found the same 97% consensus result, completely independent from the abstract ratings.

Skeptical Science

originally posted by: Robotswilltakeover
a reply to: Robotswilltakeover

www.washingtontimes.com...

Why link to that garbage site?

Use the original source instead:
Is Climate Change Now Its Own Industry?

Also - why do you compare two different things in your OP: profit (from the oil industry) to total size of (allegedly, since it includes broad things like "renewables" and "green building") the 'climate change industry' as he calls it?

That's very vague as to what it includes. Might you provide us some harder numbers?

originally posted by: jrod

Denying climate change has become quite trendy here.

You're using buzzwords, like "denying" and "trendy," to minimize the OP's credibility before you even wait for sources (which, of course, he should have cited in the OP).

Being skeptical about the religious zealotry that you and others (especially those who make money off of it, which I'm unconvinced that you somehow don't) exhibit when discussing climate science, its data, its theories, its verified (or unverified) understanding of the climate system and its drivers/cycles, its ethics, its funding, its motives, its own scandals and bastardization of science, etc., is unnerving and alarming.

Yes, you could say the same about "deniers" (or, better termed to be "skeptics"), but at least being skeptical is healthy for those who understand a scientific approach to hypotheses, especially when there is so much evidence out there that points to a drive other than the CO2 or methane produced by man's actions.

While I remain skeptical, you have married your own acceptance of the AGW claims and theories and you run with it full-force with reckless disregard for anything that may be peer-reviewed or just simply logical that negates or at least challenges your wedlock to the theory you so lovingly embrace. Hell, even just admitting the premise that climate science is in its infancy of researching the climate, let alone understanding it, is hard-to-impossible for the zealots of AGW, even though it is the truth.

So, you can still pretend that there is a consensus; since you deem it fit to link to Skeptical Science, I'll link to WattsUpWithThat and his post with 97 links to articles that refute the 97% claim. Keep repeating the 97% claim if you like, but at least don't use it as a basis or foundation for your stance, as it just isn't true.

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
en.m.wikipedia.org...


Here is Saudi Aramco...
Just one Oil Company who made 350+ billion in 2014 all by themselves.


LOL.

I'm not laughing anymore, that's a forum suggestion.

Ummm...the OP was written in pretty plain English. In it, it discusses profits of the oil industry, not the total revenue.

There is a difference.

If you're going to try and be clever in this thread with your snarkiness, at least be accurate in your reading comprehension.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

And where exactly is your reading comprehension?

The OP tried to do an apples to oranges comparison of total expenditure from anything that even remotely relates to climate change (e.g. renewable energy, hybrid vehicles) to oil industry profits. So Charlie Spears tries to move the needle slightly back to apples to apples – and you call out his post as being dishonest?

This really sums up how delusional and brainwashed climate deniers are, plain and simple.

Yes, cry us a river for the poor fossil fuel industry under blitzkrieg from them environazis who want to spend a trillion dollars to make the world cleaner – that’s socialism! Or something.

The fossil fuel industry has a market cap of $5 trillion. Source.

That comes with an estimate of $5 trillion per year in "subsidized" health costs. Source

But if we’re talking about total expenditures and investments, the industry's tied up in over $20 trillion. Source.

There’s currently $1 trillion worth of unprofitable projects alone just sitting around collecting dust:
N early US$1-trillion in zombie projects stranded in oil fields around the globe, says Goldman Sachs

But I guess that doesn’t count because only profits matter when you’re doing the mental gymnastics “math” on one side right?

I’m honestly embarrassed for some of you eating this trash.

rda reply to: SlapMonkey

Wattsupwiththat is more of an opinion blog, that does not offer much if any actual science about human's role in climate change.

There is a difference between healthy skepticism and straight up willful ignorance. The climate change deniers have yet to provide any evidence that contradicts AGW. Usually we get political rhetoric, Al Gore attacks, and the claim its all hoax to levy more taxes and destroy freedom and capitalism. None of those arguments hold any weight in terms of science, but are easy for an uneducated layman to accept.

I've challenged you guys to humble me and show some evidence( not to be confused with an opinion piece) that contradicts the widely accepted theory that human activity is changing this planet's climate.

So far nothing, however it is clear that must who do not accept AGW, do not come get to debate the science, they are here to simply car doubt on the science using what mc_squared call 'mental gymnastics'.

Where we get the 97% figure from

Let me see some evidence, simple request and a friendly reminder that opinion pieces to not qualify as evidence.