[drm]

Was the Extreme 2017 Hurricane Season Driven by Climate Change? Global warming already appears to be making hurricanes more intense

[gb]

[thunderhead]

In theory, the planet should be transferring about 1-2% more energy upwards via convection(weather) because of the changes we have made, verse the pre-industrial atmosphere. In practice, such a signal is not able to be discerned in the noisy, short duration dataset that is modern observations of hurricanes. The ocean surface is about 1 foot higher. Not very scary, is it?

[CC]

More damn lies and statistics from the incompetent and/or unethical 97%. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/02/561608576/massive-government-report-says-climate-is-warming-and-humans-are-the-cause You know, it's really weird how so many incompetent/unethical scientists end up in the field of climate science. In my field it's more like 3%.

[Randito]

It's funny that some people fine it easier to believe that 97% scientists that fine evidence of human caused climate change are colluding than it is to believe that the 3% of scientists that don't are on the payroll of the oil, coal and gas industry. I mean it's not like there is no prior cases where industry paid off scientists to create uncertainty -- e.g. the environmental effects of tetraethyl lead and the health effects of tobacco.

[drm]

[MtnGoat]

Big Coal attends global warming confab, along with thousands of other really earnest warming reducers sustainably jetting from all over the globe right smack into huge buffet tables with all kinds of exotic fare, and hobnobbing late into the night. As unself aware as ever following the Trump spanking of last year ...elites don't seem to grasp what is happening. An adviser to the president is expected to take part in a pro-coal presentation in the second week of this conference, which is officially known as COP23,

[MtnGoat]

[gb]

[drm]

Who pays that 97%? They live in dozens of countries, work in all manner of institutions. Who pays does matter and there is much proof of that. That's just one reason why it is good that the support is so broad.

[MtnGoat]

[MtnGoat]

[MtnGoat]

Reducing Urban Greenhouse Gas Footprints Using goods from far away instead of within your city limits, increases your carbon footprint! This paper is a good way to examine what could be controlled so that people's choices can be curtailed correctly. There's no end to the ways we can limit humans to suit the plumbing, so to speak.

[Randito]

[drm]

Classic cases of finance-induced scientific bias, like with Big Pharma or Tobacco, require concentration - a few industries or institutions doing that funding, if they are really going to impact things, especially in a broad field. Pharma is particularly well suited for it because they almost always fund the studies of the safety and efficacy of their medicines under development and independent researchers may not even have access to the stuff being studied, let alone the funds to do it. My point is that those 97% supporting the AGW conclusions are spread through dozens of countries and probably hundreds of universities and other institutions. It would be nearly impossible to construct a finance-based bias required to create this consensus using funding. Another thing is that the study of the greenhouse effect is quite old, going back almost 200 years. Although many details are constantly being filled in, the basic conclusions were pretty well set a century ago and have not changed much, mainly refined. Back then they thought it would take a thousand years to emit enough CO2 to impact climate (sort of like how long it would take to settle all of the US). So this conspiracy would have to have old roots, long before almost anybody cared about the issue.