Why Global Warming such a whipping boy around here?

[gallon]

Originally Posted by merlinfire

Let be honest. There's a lot of money to be made on either side of the debate should they win in the eyes of the people and legislators.

The fossil fuel industry intends to win so that they can continue to rake in trillions in carbon profits. The fact that their product is now posing a threat to the future of our species is not their concern. They can socialize the damage down the line. Have the gov bail them out.

[Robert_W]

Some new info in the Fracking side of things. A good read.

http://truth-out.org/news/item/14958...nt-you-to-know

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by TANSTAF1

HalGore is laughing all the way to the bank. Me? Not so much.

Al Gore, like many members of the financial elite, will invest in various ventures. In fact, even oil companies have been trying to invest in renewable energy:

http://energy.aol.com/2011/09/21/top...ergy-ventures/

together with banks and various firms.

In which case, you should "laugh" along, too, especially given higher oil prices. In fact, you can even have twice the giggles by investing in both oil and renewable energy.

The catch is that manufacturing and mechanized agriculture worldwide are still heavily geared towards the use of oil, which is why renewable energy will not assure "business as usual." In that case, if you want to "laugh" even more, you need to find more oil, and that's light oil, not non-conventional production. Otherwise, expect the effects of global warming together with an energy crunch:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environmen...climate-change

which is something that does not surprise survivalists. Non-survivalists, on the other hand, are free to "laugh" as much as they want, whether they are on one side or another.

[Robert_W]

And once again snow pack in CA and the countries bread basket is looking bleak.

http://forecast.weather.gov/wwamap/w...ogic%20outlook

Fresh water people. Gonna bite us in the arse I tell you.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by ralfy

The total number of papers about the topic. You do understand that the titles you shared do not constitute the total?

No one has been able to determine the total number of papers about the topic. Searching bibliographic databases for keywords does not determine this. No bibliographic database is complete and the search does not determine the context the keywords were used.

Originally Posted by ralfy

The methodology is linked earlier.

Read the methodology and other details in his page. If you have other questions, you can ask him via e-mail.

I am well aware of the "methodology". I am asking you a simple question,

Is Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

Your failure to answer the question is a concession that the "study" is worthless.

[ralfy]

Originally Posted by Poptech

No one has been able to determine the total number of papers about the topic. Searching bibliographic databases for keywords does not determine this. No bibliographic database is complete and the search does not determine the context the keywords were used.

Then use what is currently available. If you find a larger database than what has been presented, say so. After that, take a look at those that challenge AGW.

Otherwise, even the number that you presented becomes irrelevant.

I am well aware of the "methodology". I am asking you a simple question,

Is Powell counting all the results that including the phrase "global warming", written between January 1, 1991 and November 9, 2012 from the Web of Science that were written by skeptics?

Your failure to answer the question is a concession that the "study" is worthless.

You have his e-mail. Ask him.

[Poptech]

Originally Posted by ralfy

Then use what is currently available. If you find a larger database than what has been presented, say so. After that, take a look at those that challenge AGW.

Otherwise, even the number that you presented becomes irrelevant.

No, you do not understand what I just said. There is no one that is currently available. Searching a database for keywords does not tell your the context those keywords are used in making the total meaningless.

Originally Posted by ralfy

You have his e-mail. Ask him.

I am asking you, it is a very simple question that does not require the author. If you understand any of this you can answer the question. Failure to answer this questions means you do not understand what you are talking about.