Most of The World Could Be 100% Powered With Renewables by 2050

[Bergslagstroll]

As for how much has been spent by Governments in support of the narrative of Human caused catastrophic climate change,
I found this reference.
The misallocation of climate research funding

1.3 trillion is the total amount of science grants since 1950, that only very small share of that went to climate change research. From your source:

“The second observation is how little funding has gone into research on climate change overall since 1990, regardless of discipline. Depending on which search string one uses, climate research accounted for between 2.38 and 4.59% of the total amount of research funding during the period from 1990 to 2018. The higher estimate errs on the high side: very few projects that are really about climate change would not include any of the 89 keywords in the long search string, whereas numerous projects that happen to mention one of those words may not really be about climate change.”

So why would leading universities and scientific organizations risk their reputation for such a small share of total grants? Especially since lost credibility would cost so much more in overall reduction of grants. Also remember that Republican politicians, that oppose action on climate change, have controlled the White House and / or Congress for much of that time period.

While just the five biggest oil companies have made a profit of 281 billion since the invasion of Ukraine.

World’s largest oil companies have made $281bn profit since invasion of Ukraine

Global Witness says the five ‘super-majors’ are the ‘main winners of the war’ while many struggle to heat their homes

www.theguardian.com

 

[longview]

1.3 trillion is the total amount of science grants since 1950, that only very small share of that went to climate change research. From your source:

“The second observation is how little funding has gone into research on climate change overall since 1990, regardless of discipline. Depending on which search string one uses, climate research accounted for between 2.38 and 4.59% of the total amount of research funding during the period from 1990 to 2018. The higher estimate errs on the high side: very few projects that are really about climate change would not include any of the 89 keywords in the long search string, whereas numerous projects that happen to mention one of those words may not really be about climate change.”

So why would leading universities and scientific organizations risk their reputation for such a small share of total grant? Especially since lost credibility would cost so much more in overall reduction of grants. Also remember that Republican politicians, that oppose action on climate change, have controlled the White House and / or Congress for much of that time period.

While just the five biggest oil companies have made a profit of 281 billion since the invasion of Ukraine.

World’s largest oil companies have made $281bn profit since invasion of Ukraine

Global Witness says the five ‘super-majors’ are the ‘main winners of the war’ while many struggle to heat their homes

www.theguardian.com

I am sorry you did not read the quote!

This article analyzes a new dataset of research grants from 333 donors around the world spanning
4.3 million awards with a cumulative value of USD 1.3 trillion from 1950 to 2021.
Between 1990 and 2018, the natural and technical sciences received 770%
more funding than the social sciences for research on issues related to climate change.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I am sorry you did not read the quote!

You should have read the entire report. That it's clear that climate change research is just a small part of the total amount.

"The second observation is how little funding has gone into research on climate change overall since 1990, regardless of discipline. Depending on which search string one uses, climate research accounted for between 2.38 and 4.59% of the total amount of research funding during the period from 1990 to 2018. The higher estimate errs on the high side: very few projects that are really about climate change would not include any of the 89 keywords in the long search string, whereas numerous projects that happen to mention one of those words may not really be about climate change.

Third, out of the funding for climate research, the social sciences received a small share (see Fig. 1). From 1990 to 2018, the natural and physical sciences received a total of USD 40 billion compared to only USD 4.6 billion for the social sciences and humanities (based on the means of the short and long search string results). In other words, according to our estimates, the natural and technical sciences received around 770% more funding than the social sciences and humanities for research on climate change. Furthermore, the countries that spent the most on social science climate research in absolute terms according to Table 1—the UK, the USA, and Germany—in fact spent between 500% and 1200% more on climate research in the natural and technical sciences (based on the long search string)."

 

[longview]

You should have read the entire report. That it's clear that climate change research is just a small part of the total amount.

"The second observation is how little funding has gone into research on climate change overall since 1990, regardless of discipline. Depending on which search string one uses, climate research accounted for between 2.38 and 4.59% of the total amount of research funding during the period from 1990 to 2018. The higher estimate errs on the high side: very few projects that are really about climate change would not include any of the 89 keywords in the long search string, whereas numerous projects that happen to mention one of those words may not really be about climate change.

Third, out of the funding for climate research, the social sciences received a small share (see Fig. 1). From 1990 to 2018, the natural and physical sciences received a total of USD 40 billion compared to only USD 4.6 billion for the social sciences and humanities (based on the means of the short and long search string results). In other words, according to our estimates, the natural and technical sciences received around 770% more funding than the social sciences and humanities for research on climate change. Furthermore, the countries that spent the most on social science climate research in absolute terms according to Table 1—the UK, the USA, and Germany—in fact spent between 500% and 1200% more on climate research in the natural and technical sciences (based on the long search string)."

SO giver us a number of the level of funding you think the oil companies spent to muddy the waters on Human caused climate change,
and why they would spend anything?

 

[Volunteer]

SO giver us a number of the level of funding you think the oil companies spent to muddy the waters on Human caused climate change,
and why they would spend anything?

Marketing and public relations. The "Clean Coal" television campaign convinced at least one of my neighbors that coal was clean to burn. Incredible that it worked.

 

[longview]

Marketing and public relations. The "Clean Coal" television campaign convinced at least one of my neighbors that coal was clean to burn. Incredible that it worked.

None of that verbiage sounds like a number!

 

[Volunteer]

None of that verbiage sounds like a number!

Those numbers are not public. But market size numbers are and show that pollution emitters' profits, each year, could buy the entire U.S. solar industry many times over. The scale is stark.

 

[longview]

Those numbers are not public. But market size numbers are and show that pollution emitters' profits, each year, could buy the entire U.S. solar industry many times over. The scale is stark.

And so it the scale difference between what private companies without motivation can spend relative to the governments of the world.

 

[longview]

Those numbers are not public. But market size numbers are and show that pollution emitters' profits, each year, could buy the entire U.S. solar industry many times over. The scale is stark.

Sorry let me try to give you a better answer.
Coal is dead, it just does not know it yet, and will take a few decades to phase out.
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels, have no viable replacement on the horizon, and even if all fuels made from oil
were made illegal, there would still be a demand for liquid hydrocarbon fuels, even if they are not made from oil.
The oil companies are the best situated to produce and distribute the man made fuels.
They already have the refineries, the petrochemical expertise, and the distribution infrastructure.
All that remains is for the price of oil to increase to the point that the man made fuels are the most profitable choice.
The point of saying this is that oil companies do not care about AGW one way or the other.

 

[multivita-man]

I want you to do that and explain to us with your limited understanding of science, what you think it means.

Okay, you can stop thread-shitting now.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

SO giver us a number of the level of funding you think the oil companies spent to muddy the waters on Human caused climate change,
and why they would spend anything?

Saudi Arabia spent two billion dollars just on Jared Kushners company.

Report: Jared Kushner’s $2 Billion Saudi Check Appears Even More Comically Corrupt Than Previously Thought

“The reason this smells so bad is that there is all sorts of evidence he did not receive this on the merits.”

www.vanityfair.com

That fossil fuel dictatorships and fossil fuel companies have spent massive amounts of money on influencing public opinion and politicians.

Exxon scientists predicted global warming with 'shocking skill and accuracy,' Harvard researchers say

In the study, scientists showed how the multinational energy giant worked to cloud the issue.

news.harvard.edu

“After his presidency was over, Bush and a number of his former cabinet officers also began participating in the Carlyle Group, a giant private equity firm heavily funded by Saudi billionaires – including the Saudi family of Osama bin Laden. As I reported in House of Bush, House of Saud, in the end, nearly $1.5bn made its way from the Saudis to individuals and institutions tied to the extended family of Bush cabinet officials and associates.”

Bush's sordid Saudi ties set template for Trump – he was just more subtle

The former president has been widely praised for his command of foreign policy. The reality, writes the author of House of Bush, House of Saud, was much more complex – and dark

www.theguardian.com

“The combined lobbying, political contribution and advertising efforts of trade groups opposed to climate change legislations outspent climate advocacy groups by 27 to 1 between 2008 and 2018, a recent Pennyslvania Capital-Star analysis found. These groups have historically contributed to GOP candidates and political committees, with the trend continuing during the 2022 cycle.”

Oil and gas industry spent $124.4 million on federal lobbying amid record profits in 2022 - OpenSecrets News

The oil and gas industry spent about $124.4 million lobbying the federal government in 2022, according to an OpenSecrets analysis of lobbying disclosures.

www.opensecrets.org

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Combining solar and wind power with battery storage will soon be more affordable than building new coal or gas power plants in many parts of the world.

Battery costs have plummeted by 90% in less than 15 years, turbocharging renewable energy shift

The IEA's "Batteries and Secure Energy Transitions" report finds that capital costs for battery storage systems are projected to fall by up to 40 percent by 2030....

www.techspot.com

 

[Volunteer]

Sorry let me try to give you a better answer.
Coal is dead, it just does not know it yet, and will take a few decades to phase out.
Liquid hydrocarbon fuels, have no viable replacement on the horizon, and even if all fuels made from oil
were made illegal, there would still be a demand for liquid hydrocarbon fuels, even if they are not made from oil.
The oil companies are the best situated to produce and distribute the man made fuels.
They already have the refineries, the petrochemical expertise, and the distribution infrastructure.
All that remains is for the price of oil to increase to the point that the man made fuels are the most profitable choice.
The point of saying this is that oil companies do not care about AGW one way or the other.

I agree. And while we wait for clean man-made fuels we must deploy what clean tech we already have - wind, solar, and the batteries.

 

[longview]

I agree. And while we wait for clean man-made fuels we must deploy what clean tech we already have - wind, solar, and the batteries.

I think the fuels are ready to go, but are waiting on the price of oil, which is increasing.
I believe based on what I have read about the Navy's fuel production, that the breakeven point is about
$96 a barrel oil sustained. Exxon is already making low carbon jet fuel with the same downstream process.