People cite predictions as sources of scientific evidence that warming is bad, but initial predictions about warming by Arrhenius were that it would be good. So I wonder if they have changed due to politics of energy and international land disputes. Just saying that I am not sure if I would listen to Noah and Nostradamus without scrutiny if they were around today. Meanwhile, expectations about what the sun should be doing are not being met: http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304672404579183940409194498 And. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...56b9f3e-81c8-11e2-a350-49866afab584_blog.html I poached these links from here: http://science.slashdot.org/story/1...s-say-strange-things-are-happening-on-the-sun
I recommend reading BP's annual statistical review for 2012. There is a sharp and obvious rise in Chinese coal consumption, and a sharp rise in Chinese CO2 emissions from fossil fuels. Excel download: http://www.bp.com/content/dam/bp/ex...cal_review_of_world_energy_2013_workbook.xlsx The US Treasury does not want to finance coal projects in 3rd world countries, and that will be their loss.
I don't deny that the PRC is increasing their coal and other fossil fuel consumption, that goes hand in hand with development to get the most readily available energy source, but they are also aware that coal is a long term loser that is negatively affecting their environment. Further the PRC are not caught up in a policy debate about whether AGW is happening or not. If it was as some claim that AGW is a conspiracy to blunt the Chinese certainly they would be denying it as loudly as possible. As far as the US Treasury not financing coal projects I am not sure what that has to do with China.
It doesn't really matter that much, but I'm curious where did you get the 82%? I recall the 97% is from climatologists who actually were active in researching climate. I would think the folks doing the research knows the most.
I follow the oil market. The advancements in drilling technology are recent so investment in renewables by energy companies predates it. Even with that I think energy companies want to remain ahead in renewable energy investment if for no other reason than regulation.
People also need to realize that fracking has some other negative environmental affects and there is starting to be resistance to it. One big environmental affect of fracking is that it uses a lot of water and there is already a growing crisis with access to water for other uses.
It uses a lot of water and then pollutes it all. The radioactive elements it stirs up is another nasty thing with it too.
Does CO2 cause earthquakes or was the largest earthquake ever recorded in Japan just a natural tragedy with no evil political group to blame?
What I find intriguing is that one of the initially claimed dangers of fracking was that it would pollute all the aquifers near fracking fields. The claim never panned out and has seemed to fade from memory. As people focused only on certain parts of Pennsylvania it started to become obvious that the same situations were not developing in North Dakota, Texas, Montana, Colorado, Oklahoma, Kansas, Arkansas, Ohio, West Virginia, etc. [CONSPIRACY] The water use debate is probably a big reason the Texas state legislature is now allowed to pilfer $2 billion worth of rainy day funds. Considering that it was a group of Republicans who lead the effort, I wouldn't be surprised to find Halliburton and Baker Hughes come out winners from all of this. That aside, still no major industrial country has rearranged its energy infrastructure in order to oppose AGW.
