The Folly of Ignoring Climate Change

[Rebound]

6 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So, was this person wrong? This is AOC! She is a full-time social media influencer which makes her a celebrity. She is also a member of congress but that's really just part time gig for her. She could be considered the face of the modern Democratic party and could very well be a future presidential candidate. She is not a climate scientist to the best of my knowledge but of course she has a right to express her opinion.

Is she stating fact? Fearmongering? She was very specific in her claim.

 

Did you read the report which she derived that comment from? If you didn’t read it, how do you know whether she’s right or wrong?

Here it is:

https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg2/

[ironstone]

19 minutes ago, Michael Hardner said:

Well, you are against immigration I'm guessing.  That would help... zero growth and that...

That's a strange part of the debate. One side is not against immigration, but mass illegal immigration is a different thing. The other side wants mass immigration from other cultures that typically have very high birth rates. So, there will be way more people in developed nations which presumably will grow the carbon footprint in those nations.?

[robosmith]

17 minutes ago, ironstone said:

So, was this person wrong? This is AOC! She is a full-time social media influencer which makes her a celebrity. She is also a member of congress but that's really just part time gig for her. She could be considered the face of the modern Democratic party and could very well be a future presidential candidate. She is not a climate scientist to the best of my knowledge but of course she has a right to express her opinion.

Is she stating fact? Fearmongering? She was very specific in her claim.

 

Answer MY QUESTION FIRST:

Do you understand what will happen if the ocean current conveyor belt shuts down?

 

[I am Groot]

On 9/28/2022 at 9:04 AM, Rebound said:

At its heart, climate change policy seeks to do one thing: Reduce the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere.

And redistribute income from western countries to the developing world.

[I am Groot]

On 9/28/2022 at 11:27 AM, Rebound said:

Hey stupid, it doesn’t matter whether the climate is changing or not.  Alternative energy is the future, and America is going to fall behind the technology of other nations if we don’t invest now.  

Yes, if only America had the wisdom of Germany they too would be basking in the same benefits of full-bore pursuit of renewable energy the Germans now anticipate this winter.

[I am Groot]

On 9/28/2022 at 11:34 AM, Rebound said:

Precisely so. 
Petroleum is a dinosaur. We won’t be using it in fifty years. So is America going to be dependent on China for energy or will other nations become dependent upon America? That’s the only question. 

No known renewable energy source is transportable across oceans. So your question is irrelevant.

[I am Groot]

On 9/28/2022 at 1:00 PM, robosmith said:

IF you KNOW the "elephant in the room," why not spell it out instead of posting cryptic nonsense?

One of those elephants is the fact that a strong industrialized economy relies on cheap, reliable energy.

Right now we're trading that advantage to places like China and Russia, who are using their growing richest to arm and attack us.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-net-zero-has-been-a-boon-to-dictators

[robosmith]

1 minute ago, I am Groot said:

No known renewable energy source is transportable across oceans. So your question is irrelevant.

You mean sailing SHIPS no longer work? Stop the presses!

A list of modern sailing yachts

[I am Groot]

21 hours ago, Rebound said:

People in Florida are paying for it right now. 

They are? There weren't terrible hurricanes twenty and thirty and fifty and a hundred years ago?

[I am Groot]

19 hours ago, Rebound said:

Ok, so I looked it up and they do use REM’s in these turbines. They also use a lot of copper, which we mine in Indiana. China has REM’s because they invested in developing their refining. The US can find supplies as well. 

Mining REMs is extremely bad for the environment. China doesn't worry about that, of course. But doing it in the US or Canada would be much more expensive due to all the measures which would have to be undertaken to minimize pollution.

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

One of those elephants is the fact that a strong industrialized economy relies on cheap, reliable energy.

Right now we're trading that advantage to places like China and Russia, who are using their growing richest to arm and attack us.

https://nationalpost.com/opinion/gwyn-morgan-net-zero-has-been-a-boon-to-dictators

We STILL have more fossil fuels that China or Russia. It would be advantageous to keep it for necessities instead of using it for things that can use renewables.

[I am Groot]

15 hours ago, Aristides said:

China is already the world leader in solar energy.

And is currently building 200 coal plants with hundreds more on the drawing boards.

[I am Groot]

6 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean sailing SHIPS no longer work? Stop the presses!

A list of modern sailing yachts

Is it your contention that a sailing ship can somehow transport energy across to Europe? We're not speaking about means of propulsion here, you know. The question is on exporting energy.

[I am Groot]

5 minutes ago, robosmith said:

We STILL have more fossil fuels that China or Russia. It would be advantageous to keep it for necessities instead of using it for things that can use renewables.

It would be wiser to sell it when the prices are very high, especially if you want people to shift from coal to nat gas, which is far less of a pollutant. Not to mention it would be quite helpful in saving Europe from Russian energy blackmail.
 

We could use some of the profits to build some of those small nuclear plants and thus help convert our power grid away from fossil fuels.

[ironstone]

16 minutes ago, robosmith said:

You mean sailing SHIPS no longer work? Stop the presses!

A list of modern sailing yachts

Yes, there are still ships with sails. Do you want the giant container ships to use sails? To transport renewable energy? How?

[robosmith]

16 minutes ago, I am Groot said:

Is it your contention that a sailing ship can somehow transport energy across to Europe? We're not speaking about means of propulsion here, you know. The question is on exporting energy.

Of course it can transport LNG or bio-diesel.  

[WestCanMan]

7 hours ago, Michael Hardner said:

It doesn't matter what doomsayers say, it matters what scientists say.  There was no accepted prediction of a coming ice age in the 70s... that's a falsehood and it cancels your arguments.

Now they're "doomsday sayers" but in the '70s they were "scientists".

What you call "accepted" today is not as widely accepted as people like Obama and Kerry would have you think: https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=62c90d9c1157

Actual scientists with actual degrees who obviously have far more knowledge of these matters than you or I will ever possess actually do have differing opinions ?:

https://electroverse.net/the-list-scientists-who-publicly-disagree-with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

"Science" [when the word science is personified like this, it's fascist for "leftist demagogues demand that you STFU and listen you worthless god-damned peon!"] dictates (literally) that no one speaks out in opposition to the orthodoxy.

Sure, we've come a long way since 1633 when Galileo was sentenced to a life of confinement for offering up a dissenting opinion which amounted to 'heresy'. Here we are 389 yrs later and scientists can speak freely and walk around freely if they disagree, they just lose their careers. Oh joy!

Quote

SPEAKING OUT

A system is in place that makes it incredibly difficult, almost impossible, for scientists to take a public stance against AGW — their funding and opportunities are shutoff, their credibility and character smeared, and their safety sometimes compromised.

Example: In 2014, Lennart Bengtsson and his colleagues submitted a paper to Environmental Research Letters which was rejected for publication for what Bengtsson believed to be “activist” reasons. 

Bengtsson’s paper disputed the uncertainties surrounding climate sensitivity to increased greenhouse gas concentrations contained in the IPCC’s Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports.

Here is a passage from Bengtsson’s resignation letter from soon after:
 

I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc.

I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.

Lennart Bengtsson

 

Quote

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

• Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.^[81][82]
• Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[83][84][85]
• Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.^[86][87][88]
• Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[89][90]
• Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.^[91]
• Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.^[92]
• David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
• David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.^[93][94]
• Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.^[95][96]
• William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.^[39][97]
• Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.^[98]
• Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.^[99][100]
• Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.^[101][102]
• William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.^[103][104]
• David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.^[105][106]
• Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.^[107][108]
• Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.^[109][110]
• Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.^[111][112]
• Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.^[113][114]
• Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.^[115][116]
• Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.^[117][118]
• Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.^[119][120]
• Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.^{[121][122][123]}
• Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.^[124][125]
• Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
• Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.^[126][127]
• Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.^{[128][129][130][131]}
• Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.^[132][133]
• Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.^[134][135]
• Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.^[136][137]
• George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.^[138][139]
• Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.^[140][141]

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

• Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
• David Bellamy, botanist.^{[19][20][21][22]}
• Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.^[23][24]
• Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.^[25][26]
• Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. ^[27][28][29]
• Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.^{[30][31][32][33]}
• Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.^{[34][35][36][37]}
• Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.^[38][39]
• Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).^[40]
• Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202] 
• Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.^[41][42]
• Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.^{[39][43][44][45]}
• Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.^{[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]}
• Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
• Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.^[53][54]
• Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.^[55][56][57]
• Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).^[58][59]
• Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.^[60][61]
• Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.^[62][63]
• Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.^{[64][65][66][67]}
• Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.^[68][69]
• Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.^[70][71]
• Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.^[72][73]
• Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.^[74][75]
• Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.^[76][77]
• Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.^[78][79]
• Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN

• Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.^[142][143]
• Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).^[144][145]
• Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.^[146][147]
• Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.^[148][149]
• John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.^{[150][151][152]}
• Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.^[153][154]
• David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.^[155][156]
• Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.^[157][158]
• Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.^[159][160]
• Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[161][162]
• Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.^{[163][164][165]}
• Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.^[166][167]

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

• Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.^{[168][169][170]}
• Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.^[171][172]
• Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.^[173][174]
• Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.^[175][176]

DECEASED SCIENTISTS

— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths. 

• August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.^[177][178]
• Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.^[179][180]
• Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.^[181][182]
• Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.^[183][184]
• William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.^[185][186]
• Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.^{[187][188][189]}
• Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.^{[190][191][192]}
• Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.^[193][194]
• Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.^{[195][196][197]}
• Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]

 

 

[robosmith]

5 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Now they're "doomsday sayers" but in the '70s they were "scientists".

What you call "accepted" today is not as widely accepted as people like Obama and Kerry would have you think: https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=62c90d9c1157

Actual scientists with actual degrees who obviously have far more knowledge of these matters than you or I will ever possess actually do have differing opinions ?:

https://electroverse.net/the-list-scientists-who-publicly-disagree-with-the-current-consensus-on-climate-change/

"Science" [when the word science is personified like this, it's fascist for "leftist demagogues demand that you STFU and listen you worthless god-damned peon!"] dictates (literally) that no one speaks out in opposition to the orthodoxy.

Sure, we've come a long way since 1633 when Galileo was sentenced to a life of confinement for offering up a dissenting opinion which amounted to 'heresy'. Here we are 389 yrs later and scientists can speak freely and walk around freely if they disagree, they just lose their careers. Oh joy!

 

 

That's a really SHORT list compared to ALL THE REST who form the CONSENSUS.

[WestCanMan]

17 hours ago, Aristides said:

China is already the world leader in solar energy.

I love it when Greenies here say "Canada can replace the money from the fossil fuel industry by leading the technological charge towards green energy ?".

Even if we did lead in technology, China will steal our patents and build whatever the F they want anyways, and we will never be able to compete. 

The people who stand to gain the most from killing the Alberta energy sector are small-time players like oil producers in Saudi Arabia, Russia, the US, Iraq, and Iran, plus the Chinese who want our coal, and the Chinese and others who want us to buy their expensive and nearly useless green tech.

I'm sure that Trudeau will stand his ground, and ignore all of those low-powered lobbyists. 

[WestCanMan]

2 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's a really SHORT list compared to ALL THE REST who form the CONSENSUS.

That's a list of people with university degrees in this matter, and who the f are you, exactly?

Lobbyist dollars buy a shload scientific opinions, and you know exactly where the "research money" is going - to people who research "the right stuff". 

Right now, "researchers" say that oil and coal in the US and Canada are bad, but oil and coal from the rest of the world is good. 

Dirty Canadian oil can't go out through our pristine coastal tidewaters because it's not safe, but clean foreign oil is perfectly safe to bring in. Thank you Greenies! [straight face]

Also, Alberta coal can't be burned at coal-fired power plants in Alberta because it does too much damage to the environment. It has to be shipped all the way to China to be burned. Thank you Greenies! [straight face]

[robosmith]

4 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

I love it when Greenies here say "Canada can replace the money from the fossil fuel industry by leading the technological charge towards green energy ?".

Even if we did lead in technology, China will steal our patents and build whatever the F they want anyways, and we will never be able to compete. 

The people who stand to gain the most from killing the Alberta energy sector are small-time players like oil producers in Saudi Arabia, Russia, the US, Iraq, and Iran, plus the Chinese who want our coal, and the Chinese and others who want us to buy their expensive and nearly useless green tech.

I'm sure that Trudeau will stand his ground, and ignore all of those low-powered lobbyists. 

You do know that there are mechanisms in the WTO that can block sales of patent infringing products, don't you?

Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights

[QuebecOverCanada]

The folly of ignoring people's energy needs is creating a mess in Europe and will make it barely livable in some areas. Europeans, who pushed for renewable energy and abandon nuclear can't rely on their renewables to get heating for this winter, and to be fair, the climate change or global warming push comes as being exaggerated most of the times, many predictions went flat out wrong such as ice caps in Arctic melting completely for the year 2013. In fact, that year, the icecap grew by a third after a cool 2013 summer according to the BBC.

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33594654

It is also highly political, like COVID.

Some politicians, like AOC, really manipulate the anxious masses with sentences such as the world is going to end in 12 years if we don't address climate change.

"The world is gonna end in 12 years if we don't address climate change and your biggest issue is how are we gonna pay for it?" https://reason.com/2019/01/22/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-calls-climate-c/

All in all, I think the problem is mostly the fear of global climate change, and not global climate change, that is the biggest problem. Like COVID was a bigger problem than it was because people feared COVID a lot, and before that they feared terrorism, and before that they feared communism, etc.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

That's a list of people with university degrees in this matter, and who the f are you, exactly?

Someone who can read and understand the science published by the CONSENSUS.

 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Lobbyist dollars buy a shload scientific opinions, and you know exactly where the "research money" is going - to people who research "the right stuff". 

So do fossil fuel industry dollars. I'm sure many of those on your list get those.

 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Right now, "researchers" say that oil and coal in the US and Canada are bad, but oil and coal from the rest of the world is good. 

Tar sands oil from Canada is especially bad for the environment due to the amount of energy it takes to refine it.

 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Dirty Canadian oil can't go out through our pristine coastal tidewaters because it's not safe, but clean foreign oil is perfectly safe to bring in. Thank you Greenies! [straight face]

Do you really not understand that different oil has very different problems?

 

2 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

Also, Alberta coal can't be burned at coal-fired power plants in Alberta because it does too much damage to the environment. It has to be shipped all the way to China to be burned. Thank you Greenies! [straight face]

How do you propose to get China to be responsible producers of power?

[Michael Hardner]

11 minutes ago, robosmith said:

That's a really SHORT list compared to ALL THE REST who form the CONSENSUS.

Even assuming they're CLIMATE scientists who publish.  Not people with a degree in Science (or even in the Arts), weathermen, or others who call themselves climate scientists and never publish.

17 minutes ago, WestCanMan said:

1. Now they're "doomsday sayers" but in the '70s they were "scientists".

2. What you call "accepted" today is not as widely accepted as people like Obama and Kerry would have you think: https://www.forbes.com/sites/uhenergy/2016/12/14/fact-checking-the-97-consensus-on-anthropogenic-climate-change/?sh=62c90d9c1157

 

1. No, they weren't.  There was no published science that was supported by more than a handful saying we were headed to an ice age or somesuch.

2. I was surprised that the article, while challenging the 97% figure (which I have looked into myself) corrected it by saying that papers she included didn't accept OR reject.  So then THIS from your very link:

 

Quote

Even though belief is clearly below 97%, support over 80% is strong consensus. Would a lower level of consensus convince anyone concerned about anthropogenic global warming to abandon their views and advocate unrestricted burning of fossil fuels? I think not. Even the 2016 Cook paper says “From a broader perspective, it doesn’t matter if the consensus number is 90% or 100%.”

So ... they are saying STRONG consensus... 

[Rebound]

1 hour ago, I am Groot said:

No known renewable energy source is transportable across oceans. So your question is irrelevant.

You can’t transport windmills and solar panels across oceans? That’s news.