You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming.
The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
hno:
The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
hno:You are more likely to see the tooth fairy or a unicorn than a 97% consensus of scientists believing that there is man-made global warming.
The number is a convenient fraud. Investigative journalists at Popular Technology reported the 97% Study falsely classifies scientists’ papers, according to the scientists that published them. A more extensive examination of the Cook study reported that out of the nearly 12,000 scientific papers Cook’s team evaluated, only 65 endorsed Cook’s alarmist position. That is less than 0.97%. How did they come up with 97%? Well out of all the scientists who had a definite opinion, 97% agreed there was global warming and it was the fault of mankind. And how did the Cook folks determine which scientists believed what? They didn’t ask, they read papers written by these scientists and came up with their own opinion.
You found that on the Internet. It must be true!! Lol!
[h=1]UK using less energy despite growing economy, report finds[/h]
People in the UK are using less energy even though the economy is growing, new figures confirm.
Increased wealth typically leads to increased energy use - but this link appears to have been broken by technology and government policy.
New analysis of government statistics for BBC News shows that the average person in the UK is using 10% less electricity than five years ago.
That is despite the boom in large TVs, computers, smartphones and tablets.
EU standards on household appliances have allowed people to do the same tasks with less energy.
A new A-rated model fridge-freezer saves 73% of energy, compared with its 20-year-old counterpart, according to the trade association AMDEA. That is about £100 a year off a household energy bill.
The controversial ban on old-style lamps means an average bulb consumes 29% less electricity in 2013 than in 2008. And LED bulbs look likely to improve the quality of indoor light, as well as reducing electricity demand even further.
People in the UK are using less energy even though the economy is growing, new figures confirm.
Increased wealth typically leads to increased energy use - but this link appears to have been broken by technology and government policy.
New analysis of government statistics for BBC News shows that the average person in the UK is using 10% less electricity than five years ago.
That is despite the boom in large TVs, computers, smartphones and tablets.
EU standards on household appliances have allowed people to do the same tasks with less energy.
A new A-rated model fridge-freezer saves 73% of energy, compared with its 20-year-old counterpart, according to the trade association AMDEA. That is about £100 a year off a household energy bill.
The controversial ban on old-style lamps means an average bulb consumes 29% less electricity in 2013 than in 2008. And LED bulbs look likely to improve the quality of indoor light, as well as reducing electricity demand even further.
The EU is now looking at another clampdown on inefficient appliances, with the most inefficient vacuum cleaners banned from sale. Critics said the EU should not interfere in these matters, but the EU's intervention has been supported by energy experts who say that high voltage cleaners often produce increased heat and noise - but no more suction.
The tightening of standards has been driven by policies to improve energy security and tackle climate change.
A report from the UK Committee on Climate Change said household bills would have increased by an extra £165 between 2004-2013 if the energy savings had not been made.
It said gas use for heat and hot water had declined more than a quarter since 2004 - for a typical household. This reflects improvements in boiler efficiency and pipe insulation.
People also seem to have become more frugal in the recession - turning off radiators in unused rooms, but keeping the rooms they use most just as warm.
Insulation has reduced energy demand too. The number of homes with loft and cavity wall insulation is up from 39% in 2004 to 67% in 2013.
The tightening of standards has been driven by policies to improve energy security and tackle climate change.
A report from the UK Committee on Climate Change said household bills would have increased by an extra £165 between 2004-2013 if the energy savings had not been made.
It said gas use for heat and hot water had declined more than a quarter since 2004 - for a typical household. This reflects improvements in boiler efficiency and pipe insulation.
People also seem to have become more frugal in the recession - turning off radiators in unused rooms, but keeping the rooms they use most just as warm.
Insulation has reduced energy demand too. The number of homes with loft and cavity wall insulation is up from 39% in 2004 to 67% in 2013.
'Real achievement'Dr Nick Eyre from Oxford University told BBC News: "Energy use always drops after oil shocks and in recessions - but this current trend looks different.
Energy saving bulbs have helped reducing electricity use
"Energy use is lower than in 1970 even though the economy is twice as big - it's the first time in memory that energy use has fallen so substantially - and it's due to policy.
"It's a real achievement. But we can't be complacent - the improvements in home insulation have fallen back since the government introduced the Green Deal in 2013."
Meanwhile businesses have also been persuaded by government sticks and carrots to save energy, so their consumption overall is down - even taking into account the state of the economy and the annual temperature, which drives demand for heating.
According to the digest of UK energy statistics (Dukes), consumption of all energy in 2013 was the lowest since 1985 (203.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent) after adjusting for temperature.
It says energy intensity - the amount of energy for every unit of wealth created - fell by 70% between 1970 and 2013 in the industrial sector and 55% in services.
'Economic benefits'
Greg Shreeve from the Energy Saving Trust analysed DECC data to produce the figures on individual consumption for BBC News. He said: "This demonstrates how well designed and targeted regulation can have a significant impact on our energy consumption.
"Investment in energy efficiency can lead to much wider economic benefits such as job creation and even improved health."
Joanne Wade from the Association for the Conservation of Energy said: "The figures for households are very good news - but frankly they have been achieved without a great deal of government effort.
"Imagine what we could do with a proper strategy for demand reduction. We have a long way to go."
As governments continue to increase the proportion of clean energy to combat climate change, further improvements in efficiency will be needed to reduce the impact on bills.
"Energy use is lower than in 1970 even though the economy is twice as big - it's the first time in memory that energy use has fallen so substantially - and it's due to policy.
"It's a real achievement. But we can't be complacent - the improvements in home insulation have fallen back since the government introduced the Green Deal in 2013."
Meanwhile businesses have also been persuaded by government sticks and carrots to save energy, so their consumption overall is down - even taking into account the state of the economy and the annual temperature, which drives demand for heating.
According to the digest of UK energy statistics (Dukes), consumption of all energy in 2013 was the lowest since 1985 (203.2 million tonnes of oil equivalent) after adjusting for temperature.
It says energy intensity - the amount of energy for every unit of wealth created - fell by 70% between 1970 and 2013 in the industrial sector and 55% in services.
'Economic benefits'
Greg Shreeve from the Energy Saving Trust analysed DECC data to produce the figures on individual consumption for BBC News. He said: "This demonstrates how well designed and targeted regulation can have a significant impact on our energy consumption.
"Investment in energy efficiency can lead to much wider economic benefits such as job creation and even improved health."
Joanne Wade from the Association for the Conservation of Energy said: "The figures for households are very good news - but frankly they have been achieved without a great deal of government effort.
"Imagine what we could do with a proper strategy for demand reduction. We have a long way to go."
As governments continue to increase the proportion of clean energy to combat climate change, further improvements in efficiency will be needed to reduce the impact on bills.
people replying by how cold it is for a period of time in the us have no
credibility because it sways back
and forth. it would be on the same level as me saying global warming is
proved because it rained in minnesota on Christmas and most of minnesota has grass right now which ia
highly unusual
credibility because it sways back
and forth. it would be on the same level as me saying global warming is
proved because it rained in minnesota on Christmas and most of minnesota has grass right now which ia
highly unusual
Yet environmental alarmist do just that all the time with no berating from the left. Then you have the anti-GMO crowd which the left love to back, which is just fear mongering without any scientific evidence. The left like science when it suits their big government agenda, not so much when it doesn't.
I haven't read very many research papers from climatologists that use this argument. Pretty much could be found on the blogosphere by both sides but it's actually taken seriously by conservatives. Us real educated Dems need a lot of proof supported by a lot of educated individuals before we make decisions.
Climate Change Scientists Doing Research In A Snow Storm
Scientist #1: "You know all those research papers we and all the others fudged up
about global warming and climate change?"
Scientist #2: "Yeah."
Scientist #1: "Let's go back and reissue them. All we have to do is change the words
global warming to global cooling and reduce the temperatures. We'll have to alert
everybody to the change in direction."
Scientist #2: "You're right. Global cooling can potentially affect every aspect of life on Earth.
Lower average temperatures will cause changes in plant and crop life, which can decrease
worldwide food supplies. Colder polar winters will result in less melting of sea ice, which will
cause a decrease in sea level. Colder temperatures will also decrease evaporation from
large water bodies, which in turn will decrease cloud formation and rainfall amounts."
Scientist #1: "Right. The world needs to be taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint,
we all can help prevent global cooling by decreasing the environmentally devastating
effects of man-made causes. Global cooling is a major disaster."
Scientist #2: "I see global cooling causing more killer storms, massive crop failures,
widespread extinction of species and...what are you laughing about?"
Scientist #1: "You know all those research papers we and all the others fudged up
about global warming and climate change?"
Scientist #2: "Yeah."
Scientist #1: "Let's go back and reissue them. All we have to do is change the words
global warming to global cooling and reduce the temperatures. We'll have to alert
everybody to the change in direction."
Scientist #2: "You're right. Global cooling can potentially affect every aspect of life on Earth.
Lower average temperatures will cause changes in plant and crop life, which can decrease
worldwide food supplies. Colder polar winters will result in less melting of sea ice, which will
cause a decrease in sea level. Colder temperatures will also decrease evaporation from
large water bodies, which in turn will decrease cloud formation and rainfall amounts."
Scientist #1: "Right. The world needs to be taking steps to reduce its carbon footprint,
we all can help prevent global cooling by decreasing the environmentally devastating
effects of man-made causes. Global cooling is a major disaster."
Scientist #2: "I see global cooling causing more killer storms, massive crop failures,
widespread extinction of species and...what are you laughing about?"
You wont see it from actual scientist, at least the sane ones, I'm talking about the environmental groups, the one's you see at protest that are clueless to what they're talking about, they get a lot of support from the left.
The anti-GMO crowd that is just as bad as the climate change deniers, use pseudoscience to convince others that GMO's are poison and should be labeled. They are coddled by the left, because their brand of nonsense is in line with big government.
You've never read a research paper in your life, and if you ever did you wouldn't have the slightest clue what you were reading.
You're just an Alaskan pleb who pretends to be an elitist on the internets, but in reality you get all your cues and talking points from libtard blogs.
"I read research papers!" - aaaktard
http://www.desmogblog.com/sites/beta.desmogblog.com/files/Doran_Anderegg_Cook.jpg
:hahahahah
It's an unproven (and very convenient) bullshit theory believed by illiterate, insecure, unsuccessful, gullible, jealous, brainwashed libtards like you who desperately want unidentified "educated, intelligent people" organizing and controlling society.
You may not know this but everyone from the top CEO to the hot dog vendor down the street looks down and laughs at pathetic poseurs like you.
Academia: because the real world was just too hard!
Loser!@#0
It's only unproven to birther loons, aka uneducated conservatives. Otherwise expert climatologists have been talking about what increased levels of Co2 would do to the Earth for over 7 decades. It's pretty much common knowledge to the vast majority of intelligent people. I understand why you don't understand though. You're a perfect loon!! Where's your big birther news we've been waiting for?
