Renewable energy is heavily subsidized in Germany. Without those subsidies there would be no renewable energy, because they are not profitable on their own. So who is making what profit?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Only 0.7% of peer reviewed journals conclude climate change is not caused by mankind
- Thread starter Jackpot
- Start date
- Status
Renewable energy is heavily subsidized in Germany. Without those subsidies there would be no renewable energy, because they are not profitable on their own. So who is making what profit?
CyclopsRock
Member
CHEEZMO™;57845444 said:Dumbasses going "IF GLOBAL WARMING WHY COLD???" in fuckin January.
In fairness, that's partly because of comments like "within a few years winter snowfall will become a very rare and exciting event" and "Children just aren't going to know what snow is" which was written 13 years ago and by someone whom I strongly suspect is in the 99.3% on this issue, being a climate scientist at the infamous CRU.
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
They are all bad things when you are personally invested and make huge profits from the oil industry. Which is the case for many politicians and big business owners, the people who can make a difference with regard to this.
WeAreStarStuff
Member
I posted this article for people to see.
Immediately an ultra-conservative, Mormon I know responded:
"I wonder if 97.1% of academic papers in 1492 also were unanimous on the Earth being flat"
This person also likes Alex Jones though...
Immediately an ultra-conservative, Mormon I know responded:
"I wonder if 97.1% of academic papers in 1492 also were unanimous on the Earth being flat"
This person also likes Alex Jones though...
People knew Earth was round in 1492 actually.
It is an odd mistaken belief nowadays that people in the Middle Ages and around that thought Earth was flat
ElectricBlue187
Member
There were people who knew but did most people know? Most people were pretty fucken stupid in the Middle Ages and they probably didn't read a lot of scientific writing and i think common folk wisdom would be the earth is flat
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Its more just the absolute absurdity of the ridiculous analogy that doesnt even apply that just leaves me speechless. People are always trying to prove their point, and immediately dismiss anything that counters it, instead of seeking truth. A long time ago I gave into the rhetoric/propaganda that man-made climate change is bogus. Then I looked into it, and changed my beliefs based on facts; I don't get people.
ElectricBlue187
Member
Your ignorant opinion is not scientific nor would it ever appear in anything resembling a peer reviewed journal.
That is such a Lucille Bluth response!
You wrote a peer reviewed paper?
WeAreStarStuff
Member
Diprosalic
Banned
There hasn't been a warm day this year and its mid may. Global warming where are you?
Mengy
wishes it were bannable to say mean things about Marvel
You are a scientist who has submitted a peer reviewed journal against human-induced climate change?
Please elaborate for us what evidence you found against climate change being caused by humans, I'd love to hear your point of view.
We are frigging GODS! I never understand why people don't see us as gods (well, not omnipotent, omniscient gods but the next-closest thing there).
We can split and fuse (well, badly but still) atoms, terraform environments, modify genome, create near-kilometer tall buildings, leave our planet... Changing climate is nothing special on top of that, other than that it is a negative side effect.
ElRenoRaven
Member
Exactly my thought. What does it hurt to find cleaner alternative fuels, to recycle, etc? How does that hurt us at all? We're so wasteful it isn't funny too. I'd like to see all garbage collected instead of going right to a landfill going to a recycling center and as much as can be recycled actually be recycled.
Evolved1
make sure the pudding isn't too soggy but that just ruins everything
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJ6Z04VJDco
will jump on any chance to post a topical potholer54 video...
will jump on any chance to post a topical potholer54 video...
It's a dead heat!
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
ElectricBlue187
Member
We're making it worse by angering Jesus by letting gay marriages happen and so he's melting the polar ice caps with his heat vision.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
Jesus doesn't have heat vision dumbass.
He has freeze breath so he can cool the fires of hell.
Treefingers
Member
Almost all scholars knew.
Regardless of time period, most common folk know shit all.
But from what I've heard there were references to Earth being round in literature of the time, not just scientific work.
ViperVisor
Member
From Merchants of Doubt
The seeds of ignorance were planted years ago.
The seeds of ignorance were planted years ago.
Jesus is a Shaman: water walking, reincarnation (self-resurrection).
EDIT no offence, just disagreeing with Jesus having freeze-breath, that's not a shaman power.
EDIT
WoW joke, in case someone doesn't get it
Demoncarnotaur
Member
It kinda blows my mind how many people still dispute this.
Ha! Perfect.
66.4% of the papers took no position on anthropogenic global warming.
Look at how long ago that was. It's only in fairness if you ignore the massive amount of correct articles that people have contributed over the years, the massive number of explanations that the mean temperature is rising, not the local day to day. It is only in fairness if you are utterly unable to learn anything or undestand anything other than your first instinct. In short, if you are an iognorant wanker who refuses to learn anything.
Because it wasn't in their scope. It's like saying a paper on string theory took no position on the subject.
Really? That is the equvialent of an apple saying "yeah, fuck apple trees, man".
Good for you!
EnderWiggles
Member
If 0.7% isn't significant enough to be important, then how can CO2 at 400 ppm (0.04%) of the atmosphere be causing global warming?
Checkmate atheists
Checkmate atheists
Maximus.
Member
Bingo. Would cost them money to change their ways and open the doors for others to get into the market.
Global warming itself is seen in atmospheric science as a positive thing as it has allowed the planet to remain at a hospitable temperature for life. Climate change is now used as it prevents ignorance from those who say "it's snowing, the planet isn't warming" etc., and is seen as a more encapsulating term of what is and will continue to happen.
Regardless, it is not 99.3% to 0.7%.
CyclopsRock
Member
Sorry, what? It was a long time ago - well, 13 years ago - but it was a prediction about what'd happen in the future, and it turned out to be wrong. I don't think you have to be an "ignorant wanker" to listen to someone who's job it is to study climate change make a statement like "kids won't know what snow is" and then think that the fact it's still snows suggests he's wrong - and if he's wrong about that, what else is he wrong about? What do you expect of the public? This guy has over 100 peer reviewed papers to his name, and he got a prediction not just out, but flat out wrong. Is it that surprising that people don't automatically associate "peer reviewed" with "correct", even if they have done the requisite research so as to not have them branded "ignorant wankers"?
You have to be an ignorant wanker to think that a mainsteam media article from 13 years ago means you are justified in spouting crap like 'well it's cold today, no global warming'. I'm not knocking you, just those that stil have that stupid idea in their head in the face of better information that has been widely diseminated over the last decade.
Yes, one wanker wrote something stupid. Lots of not wankers have written a lot of things that aren't stupid since. If you are using the wanker from 13 years ago, that makes you a...
PdotMichael
Banned
with selling renewable energy to France because it's too hot for nuclear power plants in summer - like last year.
Ignoring the fact that nuclear energy is even more subsidized than anything else.
CyclopsRock
Member
I don't think I'm being clear enough. That wasn't a random columnist at the Independent. That was one of the 99.3% of climate scientists making a prediction. Maybe he's a wanker, maybe he's wrong - but if he's wrong and a wanker and he's still got 100 peer reviewed papers, what does that tell you about the process? Maybe it's fine and all his work is great and he was having a bad day, or otherwise making a random guess about a specific area of climate science he hadn't previously investigated. One bad apple can't spoil a batch of cider, obviously. But the "power", as it were, of the peer review process is that mistakes can found out because you have people all watching each others' data, methodology and analysis. So when someone with so many peer reviewed articles makes a prediction as utterly flawed as that - even if it's just to an Independent journalist - it's not just his own credibility that it harms.
Again, I'm not saying the guy's right. Honestly, I think we are causing climate change (and even if we aren't, there are plenty of areas of the environment - deforestation, mercury in water etc - where we unreservedly are having a negative impact). But when you have peer reviewed guys like this making wildly inaccurate predictions, and people like Dr Richard Lindzen who undoubtedly knows more than everyone in this thread about climate science, has written chapters for IPCC reports and a professor of meteorology at MIT saying that the consensus of climate change is a result of political pressures, I think it's grossly unfair to suggest that any not on board with climate change must be wankers. Maybe David Viner's right and Richard Lindzen's wrong, but how on earth would I know? They both know 100x more about this shit than I do. That's why I always find it so odd that people are so utterly vociferous - on either side of the fence - about what is right and what is wrong, when they clearly have no way of actually understanding it and even those with the most knowledge in the field get massive predictions wrong, and their papers get peer reviewed anyway. How people with so little knowledge can have so much faith in their belief is beyond me.
13 years ago. You are saying one article from 13 years ago is enough to justify someone discounting every article since? Get off it. You are smarter than that.
False equivalence much?
You really don't need such a specious article like that, that most people have never heard of, much less remember to figure out why people continue to deny climate change irrespective of the amount of hard evidence or data for it.
Pro tip: It's not about hard evidence or data.
It's about Murdoch.
Rebel Leader
THE POWER OF BUTTERSCOTCH BOTTOMS
We do too much that effecting nothing is nonsense
When you have senior advocates of climate action make preposterous remarks like that, along with falsifying data (see climategate) it really is no surprise that people are skeptical.
- Status