EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Sat Aug 15, 2020 4:06 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 90  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:28 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Trouble in paradise? :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/17/n ... -a-denier/

Quote:
Naomi Oreskes has accused climate scientists like James Hansen, who support the expansion of nuclear power, of practicing a “strange new form of denial”.


Quote:
I can’t help feeling Oreskes has well and truly jumped the shark with the ridiculous claim that scientists like Hansen, Wigley et al are “deniers”, because they don’t believe in renewables. As WUWT reported a while ago, even Google couldn’t find a way to make renewables viable – so it seems unlikely anybody else will succeed where Google failed.

As for Oreskes objections to nuclear power, her argument that nuclear power is too risky is just plain silly. Even if the nuclear route to decarbonisation resulted in several meltdowns every year, how could this possibly be worse than the complete destruction of the biosphere through global warming, which according to the likes of Oreskes and Hansen is the price of continued reliance on fossil fuels?


Fence sitters this topic rarely provides a laugh. My ass is plumb laughed off. :angel:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Dec 18, 2015 9:39 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
There is intelligent life on this planet.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/12/18/b ... nal-parks/

Quote:
Britain has just controversially allowed fracking under National Parks. The fracking rigs can’t be erected inside the parks, but horizontal drilling from properties adjoining the parks, into land which lays underneath the parks, is now permitted.


MPs have voted to allow fracking for shale gas 1,200m below national parks and other protected sites.

The new regulations – which permit drilling from outside the protected areas – were approved by 298 to 261.

Opposition parties and campaigners criticised the lack of a Commons debate – and accused ministers of a U-turn as they previously pledged an outright ban on fracking in national parks.

The government said its plans would protect “our most precious landscapes”.

Energy Minister Andrea Leadsom also said there had already been “enormous debate” on the subject.


Quote:
Britain, which has suffered years of disastrous green energy policy mistakes, currently faces a serious electricity grid capacity crisis. The failure of Britain’s green energy policies was admitted a few weeks ago in parliament by Amber Rudd, the British Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change;


Just a horrible news day for the knuckle dragging cultists. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:18 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Fence sitters do you want to see this in your country?

http://scotlandagainstspin.org/2015/12/ ... ce-herald/

Quote:
In November, the World Energy Council (WEC) which is UN accredited to
assess countries’ Energy Trilemma comprising environmental sustainability,
energy equity and energy security, has reduced the UK electricity supply
rating from AAA to AAB as a first step, commenting: “The UK faces
significant challenges in securing energy supply”. WEC, having reduced our
energy security score to one-third of its assessed level in 2013 expects it
to fall further and concludes by advising that “tightening capacity has put
UK on its ‘watch list'”.

The International Energy Agency in its November report advises that
“incidents that led the National Grid Company to using the ‘last resort’ of
paying energy users to cut their demand would happen increasingly unless
investments in the infrastructure increased”

The 2001 EC Large Combustion Plant Directive was already determining
closure of around three-fifths of the UK coal-fired electricity output by
2025 – much in use to back up wind, before Westminster Energy Secretary
Amber Rudd last month declared that the Government would “close coal by
2025 and restrict its use by 2023 if we can shift to new gas by then”.

Her speech also confirmed the UK has a “higher percentage of our energy
from coal in 2014 than in 1999”, effectively confirming that wind
technology is not working, and reaffirmed closure of onshore wind subsidies.



This is life down the renewable rabbit hole.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 1:21 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21385
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Fence sitters do you want to see this in your country?

http://scotlandagainstspin.org/2015/12/ ... ce-herald/

Quote:
In November, the World Energy Council (WEC) which is UN accredited to
assess countries’ Energy Trilemma comprising environmental sustainability,
energy equity and energy security, has reduced the UK electricity supply
rating from AAA to AAB as a first step, commenting: “The UK faces
significant challenges in securing energy supply”. WEC, having reduced our
energy security score to one-third of its assessed level in 2013 expects it
to fall further and concludes by advising that “tightening capacity has put
UK on its ‘watch list'”.

The International Energy Agency in its November report advises that
“incidents that led the National Grid Company to using the ‘last resort’ of
paying energy users to cut their demand would happen increasingly unless
investments in the infrastructure increased”

The 2001 EC Large Combustion Plant Directive was already determining
closure of around three-fifths of the UK coal-fired electricity output by
2025 – much in use to back up wind, before Westminster Energy Secretary
Amber Rudd last month declared that the Government would “close coal by
2025 and restrict its use by 2023 if we can shift to new gas by then”.

Her speech also confirmed the UK has a “higher percentage of our energy
from coal in 2014 than in 1999”, effectively confirming that wind
technology is not working, and reaffirmed closure of onshore wind subsidies.



This is life down the renewable rabbit hole.


According to a blog interpretation of several sources, which are not linked or specifically referenced to allow independent review.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 6:50 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Food for thought, fence sitters.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/4 ... ce=twitter

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 19, 2015 7:24 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21385
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:



That means those concerns about smog deaths in Europe from the late 1800s through the mid-1900s should not have happened? The push to clean the air and water was not necessary even though we had rivers catching fire? The future will take care of itself due to change ..... really.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 20, 2015 7:58 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Interesting read fence sitters.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/confessions ... 1404861351

Quote:
Was the EPA official asking me to lie? I have to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume he believed in the value of continuing the program. (Congress ended the grants in 1990.) He certainly didn't give any indications otherwise. I also assume he understood the inherent inaccuracies of these types of models. There are no exact values for the coefficients in models such as these. There are only ranges of potential values. By moving a bunch of these parameters to one side or the other you can usually get very different results, often (surprise) in line with your initial beliefs.

I realized that my work for the EPA wasn't that of a scientist, at least in the popular imagination of what a scientist does. It was more like that of a lawyer. My job, as a modeler, was to build the best case for my client's position. The opposition will build its best case for the counter argument and ultimately the truth should prevail.


Not really telling us anything we didn't already know. Sad really.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:16 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
We've already been over this one, but it is worth repeating.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... arming-50/

Quote:
One reason for this discrepancy, the study suggests, is that NOAA has been cherry-picking its raw data. That is, it has ignored the evidence from those weather stations showing little or no late Twentieth century warming and instead placed undue emphasis on the ones that do show warming.

But the ones that do show warming also happen to be the least trustworthy. These are the ones, the study shows, which have been most corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect – and other environmental factors.

Some, for example, have been surrounded by buildings or had roads built next to them since they were first sited. Others have had airports vastly expand next door to them. What this inevitably means is that their more recent temperature measurements have been running hot – i.e., they have been distorted by factors which have nothing to do with weather or climate.

Yet, bizarrely, these are the ones that NOAA has been using as the basis for its claims about “global warming” in the US.

If, however, you look at those weather stations that haven’t been corrupted – “unperturbed” stations – what you get is US global warming roughly half as much as NOAA claims.


Quote:
Whether this represents mere incompetence or calculated fraud by NOAA is for future courts to decide. What we do know is that the problem dates back at least to the 1990s when, for some unexplained reason, NOAA decided to halve the number of weather stations used for its official records. Even more mysteriously, the ones it chose to keep tended to show more global warming while the ones it rejected tended to show much less.

This is a point stressed in the new study:


It must be emphasized that the perturbed stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.

Perhaps we should be generous to NOAA and put their decision to favour compromised weather stations over accurate ones down to spectacular stupidity and incompetence.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 21, 2015 10:40 pm 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21385
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
We've already been over this one, but it is worth repeating.

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... arming-50/

Quote:
One reason for this discrepancy, the study suggests, is that NOAA has been cherry-picking its raw data. That is, it has ignored the evidence from those weather stations showing little or no late Twentieth century warming and instead placed undue emphasis on the ones that do show warming.

But the ones that do show warming also happen to be the least trustworthy. These are the ones, the study shows, which have been most corrupted by the Urban Heat Island effect – and other environmental factors.

Some, for example, have been surrounded by buildings or had roads built next to them since they were first sited. Others have had airports vastly expand next door to them. What this inevitably means is that their more recent temperature measurements have been running hot – i.e., they have been distorted by factors which have nothing to do with weather or climate.

Yet, bizarrely, these are the ones that NOAA has been using as the basis for its claims about “global warming” in the US.

If, however, you look at those weather stations that haven’t been corrupted – “unperturbed” stations – what you get is US global warming roughly half as much as NOAA claims.


Quote:
Whether this represents mere incompetence or calculated fraud by NOAA is for future courts to decide. What we do know is that the problem dates back at least to the 1990s when, for some unexplained reason, NOAA decided to halve the number of weather stations used for its official records. Even more mysteriously, the ones it chose to keep tended to show more global warming while the ones it rejected tended to show much less.

This is a point stressed in the new study:


It must be emphasized that the perturbed stations dropped from the USHCN set show significantly lower trends than those retained in the sample, both for well and poorly sited station sets.

Perhaps we should be generous to NOAA and put their decision to favour compromised weather stations over accurate ones down to spectacular stupidity and incompetence.


That is why the trends for the land based temperature measurements trend and the two satellite based temperature measurements trends match each other? Wait, if the land based data are not valid what did the satellite based measurements do to make them match and why did they do that? Especially since one of the satellite data sets is developed by one of the authors claiming the land based siting causes a bias in the measurements, and thus the trends ...... but his data matches the biased data trend.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Dec 22, 2015 9:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
=D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D> =D>

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room ... a-scandal/

Quote:
Judicial Watch announced today that it filed a lawsuit on December 2, 2015, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia seeking records of communications from National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) officials regarding methodology for collecting and interpreting data used in climate models (Judicial Watch v. U.S. Department of Commerce (No 1:15-cv-02088)). The lawsuit sought the same documents unsuccessfully subpoenaed by a House committee. Less than week after Judicial Watch served its lawsuit on NOAA, the agency finally turned over the targeted documents to Congress.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:46 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Worth going over again fence sitters.

http://www.thegwpf.com/europe-is-a-gree ... sket-case/

Quote:
Europe is a green energy basket case with surging prices, fleeing industry, falling economic and population growth, growing dependence on Russian energy, and rising fuel poverty.

It’s quite telling that COP21 took place in Paris. Western leaders, environmental groups, and international institutions are convinced that Europe is the model for the rest of the world to install more renewable energy and efficiency. Entered into force in 2005, Europe has been a mainstay of the failed Kyoto Protocol, the first agreement for country-by-country reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And the European Union Energy Roadmap 2050 wants the EU to cut its emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, setting milestones for reductions of the order of 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2040.

But, the truth is much different. Europe is a “green energy” basket case with surging prices, fleeing industry, falling economic and population growth, growing dependence on Russian energy, and rising “fuel poverty,” where even the Middle Class often can’t afford the most basic energy services. “Soaring energy costs make Europeans poor.”

To illustrate, Denmark and Germany are the proud wind capitals of Europe, but they also have the highest home electricity prices on Earth, 42 and 40 cents per kWh, respectively, against just 12.5 cents in the U.S. Germany has embarked on a $1.4 trillion energy transition (“Energiewende”) that has resulted in recent Der Spiegel headlines like: “Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”

Naturally intermittent and more expensive, wind and solar power have surged under Germany’s very expensive energy plan, and the goal remains to get as much as 60% of power from renewables in 2035, versus 28% today. Undeniably non-sensically, Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).

Yet, the influential Bloomberg, one of the biggest renewable energy promoters and investors in the world, still declared in August: “On Clean Energy, the U.S. Should Be More German.” As a side note, I’ve noticed that Manhattanites can afford ridiculously high costs for pretty much….everything.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/soaring- ... sis-519884

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 20288.html

Quote:
Altmaier and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because they're about to receive some bad news. The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20-percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.


Fence sitters there have been reports lately that renewable energy is becoming competitive with fossil fuel. We can see the results of the renewable practice in Germany and that is not the case. The renewable industry has made electricity a luxury item.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 30, 2015 7:52 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
No data set is safe fence sitters.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... vel-fraud/

Quote:
In 1963, the Guardian reported a sharp drop in sea level rise rates since 1940.


Quote:
NASA data now shows a sharp rise after 1940. The exact opposite of what actually happened.


Quote:
As late as 1983, NASA still showed a sharp drop in rise rates after 1940, in a study done by the modern father of global warming


Quote:
As with essentially all NASA climate graphs, their sea level graph has been massively tampered with and is propaganda, not science.


Follow the link for the graphs.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:20 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21385
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
Worth going over again fence sitters.

http://www.thegwpf.com/europe-is-a-gree ... sket-case/

Quote:
Europe is a green energy basket case with surging prices, fleeing industry, falling economic and population growth, growing dependence on Russian energy, and rising fuel poverty.

It’s quite telling that COP21 took place in Paris. Western leaders, environmental groups, and international institutions are convinced that Europe is the model for the rest of the world to install more renewable energy and efficiency. Entered into force in 2005, Europe has been a mainstay of the failed Kyoto Protocol, the first agreement for country-by-country reductions in greenhouse gas emissions. And the European Union Energy Roadmap 2050 wants the EU to cut its emissions 80% below 1990 levels by 2050, setting milestones for reductions of the order of 40% by 2030 and 60% by 2040.

But, the truth is much different. Europe is a “green energy” basket case with surging prices, fleeing industry, falling economic and population growth, growing dependence on Russian energy, and rising “fuel poverty,” where even the Middle Class often can’t afford the most basic energy services. “Soaring energy costs make Europeans poor.”

To illustrate, Denmark and Germany are the proud wind capitals of Europe, but they also have the highest home electricity prices on Earth, 42 and 40 cents per kWh, respectively, against just 12.5 cents in the U.S. Germany has embarked on a $1.4 trillion energy transition (“Energiewende”) that has resulted in recent Der Spiegel headlines like: “Germany’s Energy Poverty: How Electricity Became a Luxury Good.”

Naturally intermittent and more expensive, wind and solar power have surged under Germany’s very expensive energy plan, and the goal remains to get as much as 60% of power from renewables in 2035, versus 28% today. Undeniably non-sensically, Germany has been paying over $26 billion per year for electricity that has a wholesale market value of just $5 billion (see here).

Yet, the influential Bloomberg, one of the biggest renewable energy promoters and investors in the world, still declared in August: “On Clean Energy, the U.S. Should Be More German.” As a side note, I’ve noticed that Manhattanites can afford ridiculously high costs for pretty much….everything.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... story.html

http://www.euractiv.com/energy/soaring- ... sis-519884

http://www.spiegel.de/international/ger ... 20288.html

Quote:
Altmaier and others are on a mission to help people save money on their electricity bills, because they're about to receive some bad news. The government predicts that the renewable energy surcharge added to every consumer's electricity bill will increase from 5.3 cents today to between 6.2 and 6.5 cents per kilowatt hour -- a 20-percent price hike.

German consumers already pay the highest electricity prices in Europe. But because the government is failing to get the costs of its new energy policy under control, rising prices are already on the horizon. Electricity is becoming a luxury good in Germany, and one of the country's most important future-oriented projects is acutely at risk.


Fence sitters there have been reports lately that renewable energy is becoming competitive with fossil fuel. We can see the results of the renewable practice in Germany and that is not the case. The renewable industry has made electricity a luxury item.


You should not claim to refute current statements with information published years ago .... it makes you look even more dishonest.

September 04, 2013 – 07:15 PM

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:33 am 
Offline
EnviroLink Volunteer
EnviroLink Volunteer
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 26, 2003 10:45 pm
Posts: 21385
Location: Southeastern US
Milton Banana wrote:
No data set is safe fence sitters.

https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/201 ... vel-fraud/

Quote:
In 1963, the Guardian reported a sharp drop in sea level rise rates since 1940.


Quote:
NASA data now shows a sharp rise after 1940. The exact opposite of what actually happened.


Quote:
As late as 1983, NASA still showed a sharp drop in rise rates after 1940, in a study done by the modern father of global warming


Quote:
As with essentially all NASA climate graphs, their sea level graph has been massively tampered with and is propaganda, not science.


Follow the link for the graphs.


From an article on a paper looking at sea level data from NINE stations on the eastern US you can draw a conclusion on global sea level rise? Of course you cannot, but it sounds good when presented to the conservative masses. I suppose the difference between local an global is too much for some bloggers to comprehend ...either that or they are willfully lying to people .... you decide whether you are posting the opinion of a fool or a charlatan Milton.

_________________
With friends like Guido, you will not have enemies for long.

“Intellect is invisible to the man who has none”
Arthur Schopenhauer


"The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits."
Albert Einstein


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 31, 2015 11:23 am 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jun 07, 2012 8:29 pm
Posts: 807
Interesting study fence sitters.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor ... ng-crisis/

Quote:
Don’t look now, but maybe a scientific consensus exists concerning global warming after all. Only 36 percent of geoscientists and engineers believe that humans are creating a global warming crisis, according to a survey reported in the peer-reviewed Organization Studies. By contrast, a strong majority of the 1,077 respondents believe that nature is the primary cause of recent global warming and/or that future global warming will not be a very serious problem.


Quote:
According to the newly published survey of geoscientists and engineers, merely 36 percent of respondents fit the “Comply with Kyoto” model. The scientists in this group “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.”


Quote:
The authors of the survey report, however, note that the overwhelming majority of scientists fall within four other models, each of which is skeptical of alarmist global warming claims.


1.
Quote:
The survey finds that 24 percent of the scientist respondents fit the “Nature Is Overwhelming” model. “In their diagnostic framing, they believe that changes to the climate are natural, normal cycles of the Earth.” Moreover, “they strongly disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal lives.”


2.
Quote:
Another group of scientists fit the “Fatalists” model. These scientists, comprising 17 percent of the respondents, “diagnose climate change as both human- and naturally caused. ‘Fatalists’ consider climate change to be a smaller public risk with little impact on their personal life. They are skeptical that the scientific debate is settled regarding the IPCC modeling.” These scientists are likely to ask, “How can anyone take action if research is biased?”


3.
Quote:
The next largest group of scientists, comprising 10 percent of respondents, fit the “Economic Responsibility” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being natural or human caused. More than any other group, they underscore that the ‘real’ cause of climate change is unknown as nature is forever changing and uncontrollable. Similar to the ‘nature is overwhelming’ adherents, they disagree that climate change poses any significant public risk and see no impact on their personal life. They are also less likely to believe that the scientific debate is settled and that the IPCC modeling is accurate. In their prognostic framing, they point to the harm the Kyoto Protocol and all regulation will do to the economy.”


4.
Quote:
The final group of scientists, comprising 5 percent of the respondents, fit the “Regulation Activists” model. These scientists “diagnose climate change as being both human- and naturally caused, posing a moderate public risk, with only slight impact on their personal life.” Moreover, “They are also skeptical with regard to the scientific debate being settled and are the most indecisive whether IPCC modeling is accurate.”


And, the knuckle dragging cultists to this day insist on the 97 percent BS. Not so cut and dry when you take a closer look is it fence sitters.

_________________
Potato chip enthusiast.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1345 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72 ... 90  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group