Research teams in Finland & Japan conclude "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after series of studies.
The devil's advocate position is that if you don't provide an economic incentive in a capitalistic society nothing will ever happen. Probably the best way to get serious investment in renewables is to make returns on them better than O&G, so that the major's invest in them. At the end of the day there really aren't any other companies with the expertise, and infrastructure to accomplish the large scale projects our country needs. Exxon could make a 50B investment without batting an eye, fracking has provided a huge bump in domestic energy production but the fall off on those wells is steep, and all energy companies will need to look to other fuel sources at some point.We need to be good stewards of the earth. How do we go about that? If we need to call it Climate Change or Global Warming to help us to remember to take care of this place, it’s probably a good thing.
I do know we need to take care of the oceans and streams. There’s really not much to debate about that.
It is interesting that some see this as a need to change and control the economy. Like most everything else, follow the money trail.
I encourage you to read the cited study. The author is a retired physicist specializing in gas spectroscopy not a climatologist, the "study" has 2 authors, the primary and someone who worked for him in his lab. It has no methods section, it only has 6 citations 4 of which are articles written by the principle, it's not peer reviewed, it hasn't been accepted by a reputable peer reviewed journal.Research teams in Finland & Japan conclude "practically no anthropogenic [man-made] climate change" after series of studies.www.zerohedge.com
J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/04800297% of scientist agree (BS)
GD it must get frustrating for some people when all these facts get in the way of a good belief system.J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002
Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”
J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024
Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”
W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of SciencesVol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.
P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.
N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.
Yep, I agree. My concern is taking measurable evidence which is fact and stating a correlation/causation theory as fact. Like sand pounder said above, "Once people pick a side, its hard for people to look at things objectively, sometimes even scientists."Science isn't religion, beliefs don't matter. Either there is measurable evidence or there isn't.