Trump exiting Paris accord will harm US economy – LSE research

[Bergslagstroll]

You have to read the early works of climate modeling where they describe some of the basic assumptions.
https://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1997/1997_Hansen_ha01900k.pdf

So they assume that the forcing, the forced energy imbalance is roughly equal to a 2% increase in solar output.
but then later say that the top of the atmosphere forced imbalance from doubling the CO2 level is 2.6W/m2,
Lets consider what their 2% increase in solar output would look like.

If the Earth absorbs 240 W/m2, adding 2% would add 4.8W/m2 of imbalance at the top of the atmosphere,
but they have already said that the 2XCO2 TOA imbalance is 2.6W/m2, which is it?
Are they looking at the energy imbalance of the total system, or some predicted level where we cannot measure,
that is not relevant to the energy in the entire system?
No, all these complex models are initialized from a starting place, and plenty of assumptions are used there and within the run.
There is a reason that Hurricane path projections have an ever larger cone of uncertainty, the errors are cumulative!
Even a tiny error in assumed total net feedbacks, could throw a model off by a large factor after many cycles,
and the 3C range (1.5 to 4.5C) is mostly from our poor understand of how clouds interact with radiation.

On to man made fuels!
There is no such thing as a free lunch! No one expects storing energy as hydrocarbons to be free!
And man made hydrocarbons do not need to be made from pre existing materials, they can be made from hydrogen and carbon atoms.
The Navy sources the carbon from sea water based CO2, whereas others use atmospheric CO2, or try to harvest from other emission sites.
There are some high level articles which describe some of the processes,
Power to liquids and power to gas: closing the carbon cycle - EE Publishers
but the reality is that we can make ole fins from hydrogen and carbon, and everyday modern refineries
convert ole fins into liquid fuels that are in demand, mixing and matching to make seasonal blends.
The source of those ole fins, need not be oil, coal, natural gas, or any type of naturally occurring hydrocarbon.
Sunfire seems to think they can get 80% efficiency, while the Navy is claiming 60%.
Power-To-X: Sunfire reports successful test run of co-electrolysis system of >500 hours; e-Crude demo targeted - Green Car Congress

It is not a matter of if we can make carbon neutral transport fuels from scratch, but the cost of goods sold of that fuel.
Using the Navy's more realistic 60% efficiency number, a gallon of gasoline contains ~33Kwh of energy,
If our storage efficiency is 60%, then it would take 55Kwh to create that gallon of gasoline.
At a wholesale electricity price of $.05 per Kwh, that is $2.75 per gallon, costs.
A barrel of oil can make about 35 gallons of fuel, so the current cost is ~ equal to $96 a barrel oil.
If Sunfire can realize their 80% predicted efficiency, the break even price would be $72 a barrel.
If oil get above that price, the refinery could have greater profits by making their own feedstock, than buying oil.
In the early phases they could capture CO2 emissions from other units in their operations to simplify the CO2 collection.

All the world's leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action. Like for example these 31 American scientific organizations.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

There even federal agencies like for example N0AA under Trump have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Then it comes to vehicles 50 percent of new cars sales are for example pure electric in Norway. While manmade fuel is still on a experimental stage for the Navy even with the American military have much higher fuel costs because of high logistic costs.

https://www.climatechangenews.com/2...d-battery-autos-least-dented-covid-19-crisis/

While then it comes to for example air planes carbon neutral fuels are just one of many options. That for example Airbus are investing a lot in hydrogen power for their planes.

https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-...rbus-eyes-hydrogen-power-airliner-next-decade

 

[longview]

All the world's leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action. Like for example these 31 American scientific organizations.

Thirty-one top scientific societies speak with one voice on global climate change – The Ecological Society of America

There even federal agencies like for example N0AA under Trump have to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

Then it comes to vehicles 50 percent of new cars sales are for example pure electric in Norway. While manmade fuel is still on a experimental stage for the Navy even with the American military have much higher fuel costs because of high logistic costs.

Norway sets electric car record as battery autos least dented by Covid-19 crisis

While then it comes to for example air planes carbon neutral fuels are just one of many options. That for example Airbus are investing a lot in hydrogen power for their planes.

Airbus Eyes Hydrogen Power for Airliner in Next Decade | Air Transport News: Aviation International News

Again, It does not mater how many scientist agree with a models output, if the output is incorrect.
If the numbers used in the assumptions, at the model initialization are too high, any output is incorrect.
The question I raised was that one of the models assumed that 2XCO2 was equal to a +2% increase in solar output, some 4.8 W/m2,
yet the calculated top of the atmosphere imbalance was only 2.6 W/m2.

As to carbon neutral fuel, we can always reinvent the wheel, and rebuild all the infrastructure later, if the new technology is a better method,
but if the goal is to reduce overall emissions, why not do so with carbon neutral fuel?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Again, It does not mater how many scientist agree with a models output, if the output is incorrect.
If the numbers used in the assumptions, at the model initialization are too high, any output is incorrect.
The question I raised was that one of the models assumed that 2XCO2 was equal to a +2% increase in solar output, some 4.8 W/m2,
yet the calculated top of the atmosphere imbalance was only 2.6 W/m2.

As to carbon neutral fuel, we can always reinvent the wheel, and rebuild all the infrastructure later, if the new technology is a better method,
but if the goal is to reduce overall emissions, why not do so with carbon neutral fuel?

What is more likely that all the world's leading scientific societies are wrong about climate change or that a small minority of climate deniers are right? There many like you have not published any peer reviewed papers about climate change. Not only that but the few scientific papers that refute the urgent need for action are not only filled with errors but also that there are no cohesive, consistent alternative theory. That the alternative theories have so little credibility that the deniers can't even agree among them self.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"


The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz

 

[longview]

What is more likely that all the world's leading scientific societies are wrong about climate change or that a small minority of climate deniers are right? There many like you have not published any peer reviewed papers about climate change. Not only that but the few scientific papers that refute the urgent need for action are not only filled with errors but also that there are no cohesive, consistent alternative theory. That the alternative theories have so little credibility that the deniers can't even agree among them self.

"In an article for the Guardian, one of the researchers, Dana Nuccitelli points out another red flag with the climate-change-denying papers: “There is no cohesive, consistent alternative theory to human-caused global warming,” he writes. “Some blame global warming on the sun, others on orbital cycles of other planets, others on ocean cycles, and so on. There is a 97% expert consensus on a cohesive theory that’s overwhelmingly supported by the scientific evidence, but the 2–3% of papers that reject that consensus are all over the map, even contradicting each other.”"


The 3% of scientific papers that deny climate change are all flawed — Quartz

The only flaw here is your weak argument!
No one (or almost no one) is denying that the climate changes, or that Human activity is playing a role in the observed climate change.
I am actually surprised that they found 3% of the papers, saying that the climate is not changing!
The disagreement within climate science, is not if the climate is changing, or if Human activity is playing a role,
but rather how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
I was pointing out that in one of his papers, Hansen used an assumption the 2XCO2 was equal to a 2% increase in solar output,
but that same paper showed that the imbalance from 2XCO2 at the top of the atmosphere, would be a smaller number.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The only flaw here is your weak argument!
No one (or almost no one) is denying that the climate changes, or that Human activity is playing a role in the observed climate change.
I am actually surprised that they found 3% of the papers, saying that the climate is not changing!
The disagreement within climate science, is not if the climate is changing, or if Human activity is playing a role,
but rather how sensitive is the climate to added CO2.
I was pointing out that in one of his papers, Hansen used an assumption the 2XCO2 was equal to a 2% increase in solar output,
but that same paper showed that the imbalance from 2XCO2 at the top of the atmosphere, would be a smaller number.

Deniers are all over the place some claim there it will be global cooling, some acknowledge it will be global warming but not because of greenhouse gases. Some acknowledge that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming but claim that greenhouse gases play a minor role and/or that global warming will not be that bad.

This compared to that all the world's leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action on manmade global warming from C02.

 

[longview]

Deniers are all over the place some claim there it will be global cooling, some acknowledge it will be global warming but not because of greenhouse gases. Some acknowledge that greenhouse gases contribute to global warming but claim that greenhouse gases play a minor role and/or that global warming will not be that bad.

This compared to that all the world's leading scientific societies are acknowledging the urgent need for action on manmade global warming from C02.

I need to tell you that there is a difference between saying that CO2 plays even a major role, (it looks like it does)
and saying that there is a need for action of any kind.
The data is fairly straight forward,
When NOAA looks at the increases of all the greenhouse gasses, they place them into an ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI).
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
We have warmed about 1C since 1900, and the AGGI has increased from about 310 ppm to 500 ppm.
Science acknowledges that there has been about .25C of natural warming in that time period,
and about .75C of warming forced from greenhouse gas increases. (5.35 X ln(500/310) X .3 = .767C).
Greenhouse gasses are clearly a majority role, but this alone is not a call for action.
I basically means that the possible warming from added CO2, will eventually be close to the forcing level of 1.1C.
We may be able to hit the first CO2 doubling at 560 ppm, but the second doubling at 1120 ppm, is very unlikely.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I need to tell you that there is a difference between saying that CO2 plays even a major role, (it looks like it does)
and saying that there is a need for action of any kind.
The data is fairly straight forward,
When NOAA looks at the increases of all the greenhouse gasses, they place them into an ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI).
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
We have warmed about 1C since 1900, and the AGGI has increased from about 310 ppm to 500 ppm.
Science acknowledges that there has been about .25C of natural warming in that time period,
and about .75C of warming forced from greenhouse gas increases. (5.35 X ln(500/310) X .3 = .767C).
Greenhouse gasses are clearly a majority role, but this alone is not a call for action.
I basically means that the possible warming from added CO2, will eventually be close to the forcing level of 1.1C.
We may be able to hit the first CO2 doubling at 560 ppm, but the second doubling at 1120 ppm, is very unlikely.

If the data is fairly straight forward why can't the denier agree on one theory instead of being all over the place?

Also why are NOAA acknowledging the urgent need for action?

"Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate."


Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

 

[longview]

If the data is fairly straight forward why can't the denier agree on one theory instead of being all over the place?

Also why are NOAA acknowledging the urgent need for action?

"Impacts from climate change are happening now. These impacts extend well beyond an increase in temperature, affecting ecosystems and communities in the United States and around the world. Things that we depend upon and value — water, energy, transportation, wildlife, agriculture, ecosystems, and human health — are experiencing the effects of a changing climate."


Climate change impacts | National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

I am guessing you have a poor understanding of the scientific method!
A hypothesis or concept like catastrophic AGW, is raised, and the position staked out.
Others who disagree, find reasons why the hypothesis is not valid!
The direction taken by those attempting to invalidate the concept, are not interdependent!
For example, catastrophic AGW claims that doubling the CO2 level, will cause average global warming
of more than 3C, by combining forcing and strong positive feedbacks.
This concept is loosely based on the idea, that any warming that cannot be accounted for, must be from Human activity.
As scientific knowledge expands, we learn of other factors that could also be controlling the climate.
Each new finding moves more of the observed warming to the known column from the unknown column,
and depreciates the amount of warming that can be attributed to Human activity.
The IPCC has a large error bar for negative forcing from "cloud adjustments due to aerosols" (-1.33 to -.06 W/ms).
They selected -.55 w/m2 as an assumption, but if the actual number were the -1.33 W/m2,
then a large amount of the forcing from added CO2 would be canceled out.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I am guessing you have a poor understanding of the scientific method!
A hypothesis or concept like catastrophic AGW, is raised, and the position staked out.
Others who disagree, find reasons why the hypothesis is not valid!
The direction taken by those attempting to invalidate the concept, are not interdependent!
For example, catastrophic AGW claims that doubling the CO2 level, will cause average global warming
of more than 3C, by combining forcing and strong positive feedbacks.
This concept is loosely based on the idea, that any warming that cannot be accounted for, must be from Human activity.
As scientific knowledge expands, we learn of other factors that could also be controlling the climate.
Each new finding moves more of the observed warming to the known column from the unknown column,
and depreciates the amount of warming that can be attributed to Human activity.
The IPCC has a large error bar for negative forcing from "cloud adjustments due to aerosols" (-1.33 to -.06 W/ms).
They selected -.55 w/m2 as an assumption, but if the actual number were the -1.33 W/m2,
then a large amount of the forcing from added CO2 would be canceled out.

If the data is fairly straight forward for that there are no urgent need for action on climate change as you claim. Then a large majority of deniers would of course acknowledge manmade global warming but point to the evidence that there are no urgent need for action. Instead the deniers lose all credibility by being all over the place there some even claim it will be global cooling.

Also why do NOAA and other federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action if data is fairly straight forward for that there are no urgent need for action on climate change as you claim? Especially since they are under control of the president that deny the urgent need for action and also under the scrutiny of Republican politicians like for example Senator James Inhofe (R-OK).

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"


Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Trump administration wants to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil drilling.

"The Trump administration is pushing ahead with plans to allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. The first leases to drill for oil and gas in the area could be sold by the end of 2020, Interior Department Secretary David Bernhardt said as his agency formally announced its leasing program on Monday.

Laying out the terms of a leasing program is one of the last steps in a controversial plan to tap into the gas and oil resources in the region that has been fought over for decades. It's backed by Republicans and opposed by environmental groups and some members of Alaska's Indigenous communities."

Oil Drilling In Arctic Wildlife Refuge A Step Closer : NPR

This in contrast to leading global companies that sees the great benefits of electric vehicles.

Amazon, IKEA, AT&T, DHL & Others Join Electric Vehicle Alliance

 

[longview]

If the data is fairly straight forward for that there are no urgent need for action on climate change as you claim. Then a large majority of deniers would of course acknowledge manmade global warming but point to the evidence that there are no urgent need for action. Instead the deniers lose all credibility by being all over the place there some even claim it will be global cooling.

Also why do NOAA and other federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action if data is fairly straight forward for that there are no urgent need for action on climate change as you claim? Especially since they are under control of the president that deny the urgent need for action and also under the scrutiny of Republican politicians like for example Senator James Inhofe (R-OK).

"Senator James Inhofe (R-OK) is the chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. According to Oil Change International, Inhofe has received over $2 million in political contributions from the fossil fuel industry. He once compared the Environmental Protection Agency to the Gestapo, and brought a snowball onto the Senate floor to ‘disprove’ global warming. Sen. Inhofe, author of the 2012 book The Greatest Hoax: How the Global Warming Conspiracy Threatens Your Future, once claimed on the Senate floor that “man-made global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people.”"


Before the Flood - Top 10 Climate Deniers

Assigning a motive as to why individuals who have a vested interest is something, is not as difficult
as scientific attribution. You choose not to evaluate ether, because it agrees with your bias!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Assigning a motive as to why individuals who have a vested interest is something, is not as difficult
as scientific attribution. You choose not to evaluate ether, because it agrees with your bias!

You have provided no evidence that they have a vested interest. While I have showed that the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action even under the scrutiny and control of Republican politicians that deny the urgent need for action.

 

[longview]

You have provided no evidence that they have a vested interest. While I have showed that the evidence for the urgent need for action is so overwhelming that federal agencies continue to acknowledge the urgent need for action even under the scrutiny and control of Republican politicians that deny the urgent need for action.

Consider the grants and career of Michael E Mann of Hockey stick fame.
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia

In 1999, Mann secured a position as a tenure-track assistant professor in the Department of Environmental Sciences at the University of Virginia. He left Virginia in 2005 to become an associate professor in the Department of Meteorology (with joint appointments in Department of Geosciences and Earth and Environmental Systems Institute) at Pennsylvania State University, where he was also appointed the Director of its Earth System Science Center. He was promoted to full professor in 2009 and to "Distinguished Professor of Meteorology" in 2013.

From a newly minted PhD to full Professor in 10 years, not bad for simply saying what they want to hear!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Consider the grants and career of Michael E Mann of Hockey stick fame.
Michael E. Mann - Wikipedia

From a newly minted PhD to full Professor in 10 years, not bad for simply saying what they want to hear!

This a silly form of circular reason. That "they" have an vested interest in making people say that they want to hear, so therefore Micheal Mann career is based of saying things that "they" want to hear, so that Micheal Mann career is evidence of that "they" have an vested interest in making people say what they want to hear. That the same ridiculous and false argument can be made by for example anti vaxxers. That you have provided no real evidence for that "they" have an interest in making people say what "they" want to hear or that Micheal Mann careers is based on saying thing "they" want to hear. Also can you explain who "they" are and why no one have been able to expose "they".

This compared to how many posters on this forum have presented peer reviewed after peer reviewed report about the urgent need for action and also taking their time to discuss those reports in detail with you. There your response is to compactly ignore the evidence and instead demand that the evidence should be presented again and again so you can ignore it again and again.

 

[Jack Hays]

This a silly form of circular reason. That "they" have an vested interest in making people say that they want to hear, so therefore Micheal Mann career is based of saying things that "they" want to hear, so that Micheal Mann career is evidence of that "they" have an vested interest in making people say what they want to hear. That the same ridiculous and false argument can be made by for example anti vaxxers. That you have provided no real evidence for that "they" have an interest in making people say what "they" want to hear or that Micheal Mann careers is based on saying thing "they" want to hear. Also can you explain who "they" are and why no one have been able to expose "they".

This compared to how many posters on this forum have presented peer reviewed after peer reviewed report about the urgent need for action and also taking their time to discuss those reports in detail with you. There your response is to compactly ignore the evidence and instead demand that the evidence should be presented again and again so you can ignore it again and again.

Actually, I have posted more peer-reviewed research than anyone else in this subforum.

 

[CaughtInThe]

an actual leader will have to follow Trump and fix a TON of stuff.



which idiots don't know that by now??

 

[longview]

This a silly form of circular reason. That "they" have an vested interest in making people say that they want to hear, so therefore Micheal Mann career is based of saying things that "they" want to hear, so that Micheal Mann career is evidence of that "they" have an vested interest in making people say what they want to hear. That the same ridiculous and false argument can be made by for example anti vaxxers. That you have provided no real evidence for that "they" have an interest in making people say what "they" want to hear or that Micheal Mann careers is based on saying thing "they" want to hear. Also can you explain who "they" are and why no one have been able to expose "they".

This compared to how many posters on this forum have presented peer reviewed after peer reviewed report about the urgent need for action and also taking their time to discuss those reports in detail with you. There your response is to compactly ignore the evidence and instead demand that the evidence should be presented again and again so you can ignore it again and again.

I see you did not address how beneficial toeing the IPCC line has been for Michael Mann?
The they is this case are the political forces who will benefit from having greater control over peoples lives.
I am sure they see it as their progressive burden!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I see you did not address how beneficial toeing the IPCC line has been for Michael Mann?
The they is this case are the political forces who will benefit from having greater control over peoples lives.
I am sure they see it as their progressive burden!

Because you provided no evidence of that. That you only showed that he had have a successful career and maid assumptions based solely on your biased beliefs.

Can you explain how those political forces works, who they are and what do they want to accomplish by controlling people's life?

Are for example Republican politicians including Trump part of those "political forces"? Also if Trump and other Republicans are not part of those "political forces" why have they not exposed and stopped who's forces? That Trump have been president for over three years and Republicans have controlled both the Senate and Congress for two years and still controls the Senate.

Also are all the leading American universities including for example Harvard and Yale part of those "political forces" or loyal to those forces? If they are would't universities like Harvard and Yale lose out a lot from loss in reputation, stain on their history, loss of donors and harder to recruit students and staff if they "bad science" was exposed? This compared to the relative tiny share of their revenue that comes from climate research grants. If there are not why haven't they exposed those "political forces"?

Also how have those "political forces" been able to infiltrate 190 of the world's countries without anyone exposing those "political forces"?

Which countries have not ratified the Paris climate agreement?

Also if you have "political forces" that controls almost all the world's government and all of the world leading universities wouldn't those extremely powerful forces have many other ways to control people's lives besides climate change?

That can't you see how ridiculous your belief are?

 

[longview]

Because you provided no evidence of that. That you only showed that he had have a successful career and maid assumptions based solely on your biased beliefs.

Can you explain how those political forces works, who they are and what do they want to accomplish by controlling people's life?

Are for example Republican politicians including Trump part of those "political forces"? Also if Trump and other Republicans are not part of those "political forces" why have they not exposed and stopped who's forces? That Trump have been president for over three years and Republicans have controlled both the Senate and Congress for two years and still controls the Senate.

Also are all the leading American universities including for example Harvard and Yale part of those "political forces" or loyal to those forces? If they are would't universities like Harvard and Yale lose out a lot from loss in reputation, stain on their history, loss of donors and harder to recruit students and staff if they "bad science" was exposed? This compared to the relative tiny share of their revenue that comes from climate research grants. If there are not why haven't they exposed those "political forces"?

Also how have those "political forces" been able to infiltrate 190 of the world's countries without anyone exposing those "political forces"?

Which countries have not ratified the Paris climate agreement?

Also if you have "political forces" that controls almost all the world's government and all of the world leading universities wouldn't those extremely powerful forces have many other ways to control people's lives besides climate change?

That can't you see how ridiculous your belief are?

Since it is unlikely that you have worked in a University, you do not understand how unusual Mann's advancement looks.
Many professors, never make full professor, to go from PhD to full professor in 10 years,
means their work is exceptional (not something that cannot be reproduced), or they brought in lots of money to the university.
Mann has milked the AGW gravy train as much as possible, and racked up an enormous list of grant wins,
all from attaching two records that should never have gone together.

 

[Jack Hays]

Since it is unlikely that you have worked in a University, you do not understand how unusual Mann's advancement looks.
Many professors, never make full professor, to go from PhD to full professor in 10 years,
means their work is exceptional (not something that cannot be reproduced), or they brought in lots of money to the university.
Mann has milked the AGW gravy train as much as possible, and racked up an enormous list of grant wins,
all from attaching two records that should never have gone together.

At least he had the fake Nobel on his resume.

 

[longview]

At least he had the fake Nobel on his resume.

I know several people who attained the level of Full Professor, but it took them 25 to 35 years to do so.

 

[Jack Hays]

[h=3]No, Reuters, Climate Change Will Not Be Worse for Economy than COVID[/h][FONT=Muli !important]CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE SEPTEMBER 1, 2020[/FONT]

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Since it is unlikely that you have worked in a University, you do not understand how unusual Mann's advancement looks.
Many professors, never make full professor, to go from PhD to full professor in 10 years,
means their work is exceptional (not something that cannot be reproduced), or they brought in lots of money to the university.
Mann has milked the AGW gravy train as much as possible, and racked up an enormous list of grant wins,
all from attaching two records that should never have gone together.

You demand that the evidence for the urgent need for action on climate change should be produced time after time so you can ignore it time and after time. While at the same time you make accusation without a singe source to back them up. That the only thing you have showed is that Mann have had a successful career that you have not produced a single evidence for your ridiculous claims.

Take for example that climate change grants are a tiny percent of the university's overall budget. So it of course a lot more important to the university that Mann work is based on solid science. Because the university would loose out a lot more money from lot from loss in reputation, loss of donors, loss of grants and harder to recruit students and staff if they if they got caught allowing "bad science" be done at their university. Also do you don't see the consequences of your baseless accusation. That university can be bought for relative little money as you claim will mean that you can't trust that the food your eat is safe because the studies done into food safety can be compromised. Just like anti vaxxers can claim that it's not safe to vaccinate your children because the universities are bought by big pharma.

You have also still not explain how those political forces works, who they are and what do they want to accomplish by controlling people's life?

Are for example Republican politicians including Trump part of those "political forces"? Also if Trump and other Republicans are not part of those "political forces" why have they not exposed and stopped who's forces? That Trump have been president for over three years and Republicans have controlled both the Senate and Congress for two years and still controls the Senate.

Also how have those "political forces" been able to infiltrate 190 of the world's countries without anyone exposing those "political forces"?

Also if you have "political forces" that controls almost all the world's government and all of the world leading universities wouldn't those extremely powerful forces have many other ways to control people's lives besides climate change?

 

[Bergslagstroll]

[h=3]No, Reuters, Climate Change Will Not Be Worse for Economy than COVID[/h][FONT=Muli !important]CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE SEPTEMBER 1, 2020[/FONT]

It was not Reuter but a border member of the European Central Bank.

"FRANKFURT (Reuters) - The coronavirus pandemic demonstrates in the clearest terms why central banks must take a bigger role in fighting climate change even if the issue at first appears unrelated to monetary policy, European Central Bank board member Isabel Schnabel said.

Initially just a health crisis, the pandemic has set off economic shockwaves around the globe, affecting every nation and forcing central banks to provide unprecedented support to underpin economic activity.

With climate change posing an even bigger risk, the ECB must keep this issue high on its agenda as it reviews its policy framework, Schnabel told Reuters in an interview.

“Climate change is probably the biggest challenge we are facing, much bigger than the pandemic,” Schnabel said."

Climate change bigger economic risk than pandemic, ECB's Schnabel says - Reuters

There global investors also acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"LONDON (Reuters) - The world’s richest nations must ensure their COVID-19 recovery plans are sustainable and help meet the goals of the Paris climate accord, according to leading global investor groups that together manage trillions of dollars in assets."


Rich nations must make pandemic recovery plans green: global investors - Reuters

 

[paul342160]

Does anyone believe anything that Acting President Donald Adolf Tw-hitler Trump (aka Chief Rectum) says about the climate, Covid-19, the economy, etc,

When is he going to act presidential in terms of global warming, Covid-19, and the economy?

America would be greater if he died from Covid-19 or from a heart attack or if he goes to jail for tax evasion, treason, or other reasons.