Green Energy Scams Costing Taxpayers Billions

petros

The Central Scrutinizer
Nov 21, 2008
113,345
12,818
113
Low Earth Orbit
Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/



Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers

Americans’ beliefs about climate change were recently surveyed by the Pew Research Center, and the results were made public a few days ago. Pew pollsters found that a combined 51% of Americans agree that (a) there is no clear evidence the Earth is warming, or (b) natural factors are the main cause of climate changes. Therefore, just 48% of Americans believe the Earth is getting warmer, and this warming is mostly caused by humans. This belief percentage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 10 years.

Of course, the presupposition underpinning this opinion question is the claim that upwards of 97% climate scientists — translated into “almost all” for the Pew survey — believe that climate changes since the mid-20th century have been mostly (i.e., more than 50%) caused by humans. This oft-cited 97% figure was derived from a subjective abstract-counting exercise conducted by “Skeptical Science” blogger John Cook and colleagues (Cook et al., 2013, “Quantifying the Consensus…”). Selected abstracts from 11,944 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 were used for the sample size, and of those papers just 65 (0.5% of the 11,944) were classified by Cook and his fellow raters as endorsing the specified Category 1 position that “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” (Legates et al., 2013). This wouldn’t do, of course. So, to ultimately reach the 97% endorsement percentage the Cook team had set out to obtain in the first place, they intentionally combined the (65) Category 1 quantified “consensus” statement papers with the (934) Category 2 and (2,933) Category 3 endorsement papers that only needed to state (2) or just imply (3) that humans are a cause of climate changes. These Category 2 and 3 papers did not quantify the contribution or indicate humans are a primary (>50%) cause of climate change, but they were nonetheless combined with Category 1 papers anyway.

Of course, nearly all scientists would agree that a human contribution greater than 0% exists, or that humans can be a cause — however modest — of some degree of climate change. So by combining the very high endorsement rates from Categories 2 and 3 (that even most skeptics acknowledge, as they agree humans contribute to climate change to some degree) with the negligibly small endorsement rates for Category 1 (just 65 papers), and by excluding many hundreds of papers from consideration that were published by scientists questioning the theory, Cook et al. (2013) were ultimately able to get away with proclaiming that 97% of scientists believe that climate changes since 1950 have mostly been caused by humans.

But as the evidence from the Pew survey indicates, despite their best efforts, John Cook and cohorts have not been able to convince the general public that subjective abstract-counting exercises are a sound or scientific means to gauge “consensus.” As mentioned, only 27% of Americans believe that “almost all” (i.e., 97%) climate scientists maintain the belief that humans are the primary cause of changes in the climate system. Not only that, just 28% Americans agree that climate scientists even understand (“very well”) what factors cause climate changes.

And Americans may be right. According to analysis found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Prokopy et al., 2015, Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012, Stenhouse et al., 2016), surveys of professional climatologists, engineers, geologists, and agronomists indicate that the percentage of these scientists who believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans falls abysmally short of the claimed 97%. In fact, these studies reveal that only 53% of climatologists and meteorologists, 36% of professional engineers and geoscientists, and 19% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are mostly human-caused.

53% Of Climatologists Believe, 19% Of Agronomists Believe

In a survey of Midwest-based climatologists and agronomists (here called “extension educators” who have “at least a Masters degree” in agronomic sciences), just 53% of climatologists and 19.2% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans.

Prokopy et al., 2015

Ninety-Seven Percent Bunk

To summarize, the American public is about as likely to believe that climate changes are mostly caused by humans as are meteorologists and climatologists (48% vs. 53%, respectively). And Americans in general are much more likely to believe that humans are the primary cause of climate changes as professionals trained in the physical sciences: 48% of U.S. citizens are believers, whereas ~20-35% of professionals with physical science degrees (engineers, Earth scientists, agronomists) are believers.

To put it non-delicately, the claim that “almost all” scientists (i.e., 97%) believe that most changes in the climate system are caused by humans is … bunk.

And most Americans already knew that.

- See more at: Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
If there was a quest to keep the population as poor as possible this would help in a big way. I'm a big fan of produce the electricity yo need onsite for an emergency situation. The extra power would come from large power plants near the industrial centers. Rural would be produce what you need when maxed out running all the devices you have. That is still pretty small by today\s standards. Solar roof panel on the sunny-side of the roof and herbal garden on the shady side. Having a shop/barn in the rurals would give you 220AC power for time periods you set as you spin up the weight and let go of the clutch. The falling chain type holds the most potential IMO. Try ordering 400 ft of anchor chain suitable tug boat from ACME and see how much paperwork would be involved. You could probably use a belt drive and hang the pots that you grow your herbs in and enough heavy pots you end up with the same weight as the anchor chain and no shipping charges.
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
193
63
Nakusp, BC




 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesta...cientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/



Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers

Americans’ beliefs about climate change were recently surveyed by the Pew Research Center, and the results were made public a few days ago. Pew pollsters found that a combined 51% of Americans agree that (a) there is no clear evidence the Earth is warming, or (b) natural factors are the main cause of climate changes. Therefore, just 48% of Americans believe the Earth is getting warmer, and this warming is mostly caused by humans. This belief percentage has essentially remained unchanged for the last 10 years.

Of course, the presupposition underpinning this opinion question is the claim that upwards of 97% climate scientists — translated into “almost all” for the Pew survey — believe that climate changes since the mid-20th century have been mostly (i.e., more than 50%) caused by humans. This oft-cited 97% figure was derived from a subjective abstract-counting exercise conducted by “Skeptical Science” blogger John Cook and colleagues (Cook et al., 2013, “Quantifying the Consensus…”). Selected abstracts from 11,944 scientific papers published between 1991 and 2011 were used for the sample size, and of those papers just 65 (0.5% of the 11,944) were classified by Cook and his fellow raters as endorsing the specified Category 1 position that “Explicitly states that humans are the primary cause of recent global warming” (Legates et al., 2013). This wouldn’t do, of course. So, to ultimately reach the 97% endorsement percentage the Cook team had set out to obtain in the first place, they intentionally combined the (65) Category 1 quantified “consensus” statement papers with the (934) Category 2 and (2,933) Category 3 endorsement papers that only needed to state (2) or just imply (3) that humans are a cause of climate changes. These Category 2 and 3 papers did not quantify the contribution or indicate humans are a primary (>50%) cause of climate change, but they were nonetheless combined with Category 1 papers anyway.

Of course, nearly all scientists would agree that a human contribution greater than 0% exists, or that humans can be a cause — however modest — of some degree of climate change. So by combining the very high endorsement rates from Categories 2 and 3 (that even most skeptics acknowledge, as they agree humans contribute to climate change to some degree) with the negligibly small endorsement rates for Category 1 (just 65 papers), and by excluding many hundreds of papers from consideration that were published by scientists questioning the theory, Cook et al. (2013) were ultimately able to get away with proclaiming that 97% of scientists believe that climate changes since 1950 have mostly been caused by humans.

But as the evidence from the Pew survey indicates, despite their best efforts, John Cook and cohorts have not been able to convince the general public that subjective abstract-counting exercises are a sound or scientific means to gauge “consensus.” As mentioned, only 27% of Americans believe that “almost all” (i.e., 97%) climate scientists maintain the belief that humans are the primary cause of changes in the climate system. Not only that, just 28% Americans agree that climate scientists even understand (“very well”) what factors cause climate changes.

And Americans may be right. According to analysis found in the peer-reviewed scientific literature (Prokopy et al., 2015, Lefsrud and Meyer, 2012, Stenhouse et al., 2016), surveys of professional climatologists, engineers, geologists, and agronomists indicate that the percentage of these scientists who believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans falls abysmally short of the claimed 97%. In fact, these studies reveal that only 53% of climatologists and meteorologists, 36% of professional engineers and geoscientists, and 19% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are mostly human-caused.

53% Of Climatologists Believe, 19% Of Agronomists Believe

In a survey of Midwest-based climatologists and agronomists (here called “extension educators” who have “at least a Masters degree” in agronomic sciences), just 53% of climatologists and 19.2% of agronomists believe that changes in the climate system are primarily caused by humans.

Prokopy et al., 2015

Ninety-Seven Percent Bunk

To summarize, the American public is about as likely to believe that climate changes are mostly caused by humans as are meteorologists and climatologists (48% vs. 53%, respectively). And Americans in general are much more likely to believe that humans are the primary cause of climate changes as professionals trained in the physical sciences: 48% of U.S. citizens are believers, whereas ~20-35% of professionals with physical science degrees (engineers, Earth scientists, agronomists) are believers.

To put it non-delicately, the claim that “almost all” scientists (i.e., 97%) believe that most changes in the climate system are caused by humans is … bunk.

And most Americans already knew that.

- See more at: Only 53% Of Climatologists & Meteorologists, 36% Of Engineers & Geoscientists, 19% Of Agronomists Are ‘Consensus’ Believers


Wow, that's a long answer. But I don't trust posts from people who do not understand the chemistry of combustion.

Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


I have several times given you a reference: Climate Change: No, It

You COULD have actually read the his review of the problems but apparently since it isn't directly from NOAA you've decided it isn't worthwhile.


Sorry I don't respond well to news site supported by the coal and oil industry. Try posting some real science not something made up by some right wing "expert."
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Where did you get that made up number? Oh, let me guess you did a personal survey of all climatologists. Here's my number. I'd guess the other 3% are shills for oil and coal companies.

https://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm


I have several times given you a reference: Climate Change: No, It

You COULD have actually read the his review of the problems but apparently since it isn't directly from NOAA you've decided it isn't worthwhile.


Why don't you use this as a source? It is just as reliable as your others.

New York AG: Rex Tillerson Used An Email Alias at Exxon | Time.com
 
Last edited:

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
Canadian mining companies are among the worst human rights violators operating in third world countries. They hire goons and beat, and murder indigenous peoples for trying to protect their land and water. Makes ya proud to be Canadian, eh. Bunch of scum bags.

Indigenous people's land LOL

They could give two sh*ts

This is how they treat their land when the cameras are gone.

 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
Why don't you use this as a source? It is just as reliable as your others.

New York AG: Rex Tillerson Used An Email Alias at Exxon | Time.com
Do you know what just happened? The FINAL American solar cell company just went bankrupt because they are so efficient and useful. They even bounced the paychecks of the worker's final pay. Though they claim they'll make good on it.

These are the same people that were installing rooftop solar cells and had ALL of these claims that their electric bills had fallen to zero. These are also the same people calling me up to install them on my roof in order to drop my $200 electric bill to zero. Until the latest electric cost increase I was paying $20 month. So who could POSSIBLY be paying $200 and what would they be using it for?

Tell you what, when you HAVE no access to solar power how do you intend to use it?
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
Do you know what just happened? The FINAL American solar cell company just went bankrupt because they are so efficient and useful. They even bounced the paychecks of the worker's final pay. Though they claim they'll make good on it.

These are the same people that were installing rooftop solar cells and had ALL of these claims that their electric bills had fallen to zero. These are also the same people calling me up to install them on my roof in order to drop my $200 electric bill to zero. Until the latest electric cost increase I was paying $20 month. So who could POSSIBLY be paying $200 and what would they be using it for?

Tell you what, when you HAVE no access to solar power how do you intend to use it?

Was it another Trump company, by any chance?
 

Bar Sinister

Executive Branch Member
Jan 17, 2010
8,252
19
38
Edmonton
Do you know what just happened? The FINAL American solar cell company just went bankrupt because they are so efficient and useful. They even bounced the paychecks of the worker's final pay. Though they claim they'll make good on it.

These are the same people that were installing rooftop solar cells and had ALL of these claims that their electric bills had fallen to zero. These are also the same people calling me up to install them on my roof in order to drop my $200 electric bill to zero. Until the latest electric cost increase I was paying $20 month. So who could POSSIBLY be paying $200 and what would they be using it for?

Tell you what, when you HAVE no access to solar power how do you intend to use it?


Looks to me like there are lots of solar cell companies in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
 

Danbones

Hall of Fame Member
Sep 23, 2015
24,505
2,197
113
yeah here is one of your fancy little compnies:

"Solyndra misled government to get $535M solar project loan:

Solyndra, the solar panel manufacturer who took more than $500 million from President Obama’s stimulus then went bust, sticking taxpayers for the loss, lied to federal officials to secure the loan, the Energy Department’s inspector general said in a report released Wednesday.

But the Obama administration goofed too, and may have cut corners in fully vetting the project because of “political pressure” from top Democrats and Solyndra itself, the investigators said in their report, which took four years to complete."


Con artist pointing out invisible non existant items for the emperor to invest tax dollars into...
I wonder what his cut was?

of course they did
must be a CC run company
;)
freakin new meaning to "o-bomba" all right
jeeezus

Not only did a bunch of turds screw the government..they were the government!!!
I wonder at all the cost of the 4 year investigation too.

...and cliffy is postin' memes again:
that's a BIG help that is!
:)
 
Last edited:

taxslave

Hall of Fame Member
Nov 25, 2008
36,362
4,340
113
Vancouver Island
Was it another Trump company, by any chance?

Gore-Suzuki FREE POWER INC.

Looks to me like there are lots of solar cell companies in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies

Should have read your source first. A quick check showed the first US company doesn't exist and the second filed for bankrupty.

The third one has one plant in the US and a bunch in different parts of the world, most closed due to lack of saes.
 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
Looks to me like there are lots of solar cell companies in the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_photovoltaics_companies
ALL of the US companies are now gone. This isn't because solar power isn't practical in some cases but because it isn't practical in massive applications like is being shoved down your throat. Canada is not a good location because of it's latitude.

This is SUPPOSED to be a conversation and you insist on turning it into an argument. Conversations are supposed to be based on mutual respect of the other's opinions where opinions are important. But the FACTS of the science are not open to opinions and when science is based upon computer models that have proven inaccurate in every case they are not facts but opinions. I can respect their opinions and argue that the opinions are wrong.

If you want to see the twisted nature that "science" has become try reading the skeptical science forum. This is the sort of site that people repeat false or misrepresented studies and then ask YOU for citations when you proclaim not opinion but fact.

Man is now blamed for ALL of the growth in CO2. I have calculated it and Dr. Ceist in his study has calculated it. Our numbers are close enough together to say they agree. But they show that the ONLY source of CO2 has to be man.

The problem is that the growth of CO2 is linear and yet man's use of fossil fuels has been logarithmic. Furthermore, the warming releases stupendous amounts of CO2 from melting permafrost and the ocean and this doesn't appear to even show on the charts.

There is something overwhelmingly wrong with the analysis and to proclaim that CO2 is a greenhouse gas when it started growing before man generated any significant amounts of it or that they can show NO chemical reason why CO2 should act as they claim is a bit over the top.

What we need is real study and not people like you following a mainstream thought as if it were a religion.
 

Wake

Electoral Member
Feb 17, 2017
112
0
16
What we need is real people who actually know and not internet know-it-alls. Imagine: A researcher who isn't aware of Fundy tides
Tell us lone wolf - what do you need to know about tides in the Bay of Fundy? Do you suppose that knowing the precise speed of the tidal currents at any particular point in a tide would make some sort of difference of HOW you draw power?

Tell us HOW you draw large amounts of energy from a tidal current without cause large changes in the movements of the tides themselves.

Does the fact that I hold a patent on drawing power from ocean currents give me any standing other than an Internet know-it-all? Does the fact that I helped to develop vertical windmills make any difference?

Or is the real problem that you don't understand what we're talking about and instead of asking questions you make proclamations?

Here's and experiment for you. Make a flat hand and push it through the water full frontal. What happens to the water flow behind it?

If you understand that we can discuss it further if you'd like.
 

Curious Cdn

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 22, 2015
37,070
8
36
I think you're a braggart - one of those internet know-it-alls - but do enjoy your anonymity and your delusion, oh great I Am

He's an oil company schill on here doing missionary work among us non-believers, by the looks of it.