We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So

[Bergslagstroll]

Only in the minds of alarmist searching for authority or funding.

So are you claiming that the 197 world governments that have signed the Paris Accord do it to gain authority? Do you also claim that all the world leading scientific societies acknowledge that acknowledge the urgent need for action are corrupt?

That can't you see how ridiculous you claims are especially. Also that even prestigious universities like Harvard that get very little of their funding from climate change research acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"Climate change is a global threat that requires an urgent response. The Harvard community is taking a multi-faceted approach to addressing and reversing the effects of this crisis."

Climate Crisis

The Harvard community has come together to find solutions to the crisis of our time: climate change.

www.harvard.edu

That at the same time you have not provided any sources for your extremely serious accusations against the scientific community.

Also Trump and Republican climate deniers in Congress would of course have stopped funding then they there in charge if they had found any wrong doings in the scientific work. There the result was instead that federal agencies continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidence was so overwhelming.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[longview]

So are you claiming that the 197 world governments that have signed the Paris Accord do it to gain authority? Do you also claim that all the world leading scientific societies acknowledge that acknowledge the urgent need for action are corrupt?

That can't you see how ridiculous you claims are especially. Also that even prestigious universities like Harvard that get very little of their funding from climate change research acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"Climate change is a global threat that requires an urgent response. The Harvard community is taking a multi-faceted approach to addressing and reversing the effects of this crisis."

Climate Crisis

The Harvard community has come together to find solutions to the crisis of our time: climate change.

www.harvard.edu

That at the same time you have not provided any sources for your extremely serious accusations against the scientific community.

Also Trump and Republican climate deniers in Congress would of course have stopped funding then they there in charge if they had found any wrong doings in the scientific work. There the result was instead that federal agencies continued to acknowledge the urgent need for action because the evidence was so overwhelming.

"The impacts of climate change are already being felt in communities across the country. More frequent and intense extreme weather and climate-related events, as well as changes in average climate conditions, are expected to continue to damage infrastructure, ecosystems, and social systems that provide essential benefits to communities. Future climate change is expected to further disrupt many areas of life, exacerbating existing challenges to prosperity posed by aging and deteriorating infrastructure, stressed ecosystems, and economic inequality. Impacts within and across regions will not be distributed equally. People who are already vulnerable, including lower-income and other marginalized communities, have lower capacity to prepare for and cope with extreme weather and climate-related events and are expected to experience greater impacts. Prioritizing adaptation actions for the most vulnerable populations would contribute to a more equitable future within and across communities. Global action to significantly cut greenhouse gas emissions can substantially reduce climate-related risks and increase opportunities for these populations in the longer term."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

The Paris accord is all about wealth distribution, and yes that is a type of authority.
The Scientific organizations exists, to promote their fields of science, Keeping the alarm bells ringing,
keeps the money flowing in.
At the root of AGW, is a loose concept that feedback to CO2 forced warming, will cause much greater additional warming.
The problem is that the feedbacks, are net feedbacks, and the positive and negative feedbacks look like they nearly cancel
each other out.
If this were not the case then the pre 1950 warming, would be amplified by the same feedbacks to produce much greater
warming than we are seeing today.
Think of it this way, HadCrut4 has pre 1950 warming of .29C,
and total warming of about 1.1C, ~.8C since 1950.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 4.5 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .89C of warming in the record.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 3 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .49C of warming in the record.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 1.5 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .19C of warming in the record.
After accounting for warming forcing from the AGGI growth since 1950, (.64C), there is only .8 -.64 = .16 C of extra warming.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

The Paris accord is all about wealth distribution, and yes that is a type of authority.
The Scientific organizations exists, to promote their fields of science, Keeping the alarm bells ringing,
keeps the money flowing in.
At the root of AGW, is a loose concept that feedback to CO2 forced warming, will cause much greater additional warming.
The problem is that the feedbacks, are net feedbacks, and the positive and negative feedbacks look like they nearly cancel
each other out.
If this were not the case then the pre 1950 warming, would be amplified by the same feedbacks to produce much greater
warming than we are seeing today.
Think of it this way, HadCrut4 has pre 1950 warming of .29C,
and total warming of about 1.1C, ~.8C since 1950.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 4.5 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .89C of warming in the record.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 3 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .49C of warming in the record.
IF the 2XCO2 ECS were actually 1.5 C, then by now there would have to be an extra .19C of warming in the record.
After accounting for warming forcing from the AGGI growth since 1950, (.64C), there is only .8 -.64 = .16 C of extra warming.

So do you claim that 197 governments with vastly different ideology, goals and wealth in their countries all agrees to participate in some "grand scheme" to promote wealth distribution?

Also do you claim that all world's leading scientific organizations and universities are all corrupt and only care about "having the money flowing" and not about science? There many of those scientific organizations and universities get only a small/tiny bit of their funding from climate research.

That can't you see how extreme and ridiculous your claims are.

You need also to explain the role of the Trump administrations and Republicans in Congress. That do you believe that those Republicans where secretly part of this massive conspiracy to promote climate change or just that they there completely incompetent. Because they there not able with the entire federal government at their disposal to expose the massive conspiracy you claim exist. That instead continued federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of those Republicans to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation while increasing energy demands, resulting in higher electricity costs. The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operations and supply chains. Some aspects of our economy may see slight near-term improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Climate change is a urgent national security threat.

"The National Intelligence Council in March published its Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World report. Focusing on national security challenges expected over the next 20 years, it cites climate change as being a major challenge and risk-multiplier. The report suggests that climate change will likely increase inequality and competition and thus decrease security.

Erin Sikorsky, part of the team that authored the Global Trends 2040 report, now works as Deputy Director of the Center for Climate and Security and Director of the International Military Council on Climate and Security.

“When you talk about keeping Americans safe, if that’s the purpose of national security at its core level, then managing climate risks is part and parcel of that, because they’re the thing that threatens Americans the most, these days,” Sikorsky said."

Revitalized U.S. urgency on climate change and national security » Yale Climate Connections

The Biden administration’s national security concerns over climate change mark a sharp shift from the Trump administration approach.

yaleclimateconnections.org

 

[longview]

So do you claim that 197 governments with vastly different ideology, goals and wealth in their countries all agrees to participate in some "grand scheme" to promote wealth distribution?

Also do you claim that all world's leading scientific organizations and universities are all corrupt and only care about "having the money flowing" and not about science? There many of those scientific organizations and universities get only a small/tiny bit of their funding from climate research.

That can't you see how extreme and ridiculous your claims are.

You need also to explain the role of the Trump administrations and Republicans in Congress. That do you believe that those Republicans where secretly part of this massive conspiracy to promote climate change or just that they there completely incompetent. Because they there not able with the entire federal government at their disposal to expose the massive conspiracy you claim exist. That instead continued federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of those Republicans to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"In the absence of significant global mitigation action and regional adaptation efforts, rising temperatures, sea level rise, and changes in extreme events are expected to increasingly disrupt and damage critical infrastructure and property, labor productivity, and the vitality of our communities. Regional economies and industries that depend on natural resources and favorable climate conditions, such as agriculture, tourism, and fisheries, are vulnerable to the growing impacts of climate change. Rising temperatures are projected to reduce the efficiency of power generation while increasing energy demands, resulting in higher electricity costs. The impacts of climate change beyond our borders are expected to increasingly affect our trade and economy, including import and export prices and U.S. businesses with overseas operations and supply chains. Some aspects of our economy may see slight near-term improvements in a modestly warmer world. However, the continued warming that is projected to occur without substantial and sustained reductions in global greenhouse gas emissions is expected to cause substantial net damage to the U.S. economy throughout this century, especially in the absence of increased adaptation efforts. With continued growth in emissions at historic rates, annual losses in some economic sectors are projected to reach hundreds of billions of dollars by the end of the century—more than the current gross domestic product (GDP) of many U.S. states."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

Think of it as a parade of the willing!
All these groups, see a way to advance their own agenda, if they are willing to toe the AGW line.
The cost of toeing said line is not high, because the uncertainties cover a broad range of possibilities.
By not contesting things that while not accurate, are still withing the uncertainty envelope,
they qualify to receive increased funding!

 

[longview]

Climate change is a urgent national security threat.

"The National Intelligence Council in March published its Global Trends 2040: A More Contested World report. Focusing on national security challenges expected over the next 20 years, it cites climate change as being a major challenge and risk-multiplier. The report suggests that climate change will likely increase inequality and competition and thus decrease security.

Erin Sikorsky, part of the team that authored the Global Trends 2040 report, now works as Deputy Director of the Center for Climate and Security and Director of the International Military Council on Climate and Security.

“When you talk about keeping Americans safe, if that’s the purpose of national security at its core level, then managing climate risks is part and parcel of that, because they’re the thing that threatens Americans the most, these days,” Sikorsky said."

Revitalized U.S. urgency on climate change and national security » Yale Climate Connections

The Biden administration’s national security concerns over climate change mark a sharp shift from the Trump administration approach.

yaleclimateconnections.org

If that is the case, are you supporting nuclear power, and other approaches that have a real possibility of cutting emissions?

 

[watsup]

Think of it as a parade of the willing!
All these groups, see a way to advance their own agenda, if they are willing to toe the AGW line.
The cost of toeing said line is not high, because the uncertainties cover a broad range of possibilities.
By not contesting things that while not accurate, are still withing the uncertainty envelope,
they qualify to receive increased funding!

Conspiracy theories only lessen your credibility even more, what little is left of it.

 

[longview]

Conspiracy theories only lessen your credibility even more, what little is left of it.

There is no Conspiracy, only groups of people biased in a similar way.
Were it a conspiracy, then it was a conspiracy the elected Joe Biden to be President.
Nope, it is just a collection of people who choose to look at the available data through subjective lenses.

 

[watsup]

There is no Conspiracy, only groups of people biased in a similar way.
Were it a conspiracy, then it was a conspiracy the elected Joe Biden to be President.
Nope, it is just a collection of people who choose to look at the available data through subjective lenses.

Last sentence: psychological projection BIGTIME.

 

[longview]

Last sentence: psychological projection BIGTIME.

In your opinion!
You seem to revert back to your collection of buzz phrases when you cannot field a valid argument!

 

[Lord of Planar]

So do you claim that 197 governments with vastly different ideology, goals and wealth in their countries all agrees to participate in some "grand scheme" to promote wealth distribution?

I do.

Most of them will benifit from the handout the first world nations would give them. And most of them cannot be trusted to use it properly either.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Think of it as a parade of the willing!
All these groups, see a way to advance their own agenda, if they are willing to toe the AGW line.
The cost of toeing said line is not high, because the uncertainties cover a broad range of possibilities.
By not contesting things that while not accurate, are still withing the uncertainty envelope,
they qualify to receive increased funding!

World leading universities like Harvard, Yale and also MIT have taken a clear stand that their are an urgent need for action on climate change. There those prestigious universities would of course lose a lot of prestige and in turn funding if those warnings was not based on strong evidence for a urgent need for action. Also those leading universities only get a tiny bit of their funding's from climate change research so the reward for that huge risk is very small.

Climate Science, Risk & Solutions

Climate Knowledge for Everyone

climateprimer.mit.edu

It would also of course be a massive risk for these 31 leading American scientific societies if their letter to Congress about the urgent need for action on climate change was not based on strong scientific evidence. Because there would of course lose a lot of credibility that could lead to less funding not only then it comes to climate change but in many other scientific areas if their warnings was not based on strong scientific evidence.

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

www.esa.org

That can't you see how ridiculous your baseless speculations and accusations are. You also need explain why Trump and Republicans in Congress didn't stop climate change funding if as you claim it was not based on strong and real evidence.

 

[Bergslagstroll]

If that is the case, are you supporting nuclear power, and other approaches that have a real possibility of cutting emissions?

New nuclear power plants are getting delayed and way over budget.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20191028/french-nuclear-power-plant-is-seven-years-late-and-costs-have-tripled/

While at the same time you are seeing a rapid build out of renewable energy.

When will renewable energy overtake coal and gas? | World Economic Forum

Renewables met 97% of Scotland's electricity demand in 2020

Scotland narrowly missed a 100% target but renewables output has tripled in the last 10 years.

www.bbc.com

 

[Bergslagstroll]

I do.

Most of them will benifit from the handout the first world nations would give them. And most of them cannot be trusted to use it properly either.

As I said those 197 governments have vastly different ideology, goals and wealth in their countries. There the countries that have signed the accord includes both countries that give aid, countries that neither give or receive aid as well as countries that receive aid. Also that it can also be lot more profitable for western politicians to be loyal to fossil fuel interests then be part of some crazy scheme to promote wealth distribution.

Fossil fuel political giving outdistances renewables 13 to one » Yale Climate Connections

During the latest midterm election cycle, the fossil fuel industry paid at least $359 million for federal campaign donations and lobbying.

yaleclimateconnections.org

Fossil-fuel industry doubles donations to major parties in four years, report shows

Coal, oil and gas companies trying to ‘buy political power’, says Australian Conservation Foundation

www.theguardian.com

Oil and Gas Firms Reward Politicians When They Vote Against the Environment, Finds New Study

It is no secret that many members of Congress particularly on the Republican side are in the pockets of their fossil fuel funders. The strategy of these special interests is to keep loyal lawmakers in their pockets through hefty campaign contributions, according to a new study exploring the...

www.desmog.com

That the fossil fuels interests have been able to delay action on climate change for so many decades. There the reason that we finally now starting to see action all across the world is because the evidence are so overwhelming and that the devasating effects of climate changes are already being felt all across the world.

"We would not have to turn the clock back very far to a time when few would have believed that a record-shattering heatwave in the western U.S. could raise Los Angeles temperatures above 120°F, or that areas of Siberia could experience temperatures of over 100°F. Nor would many have anticipated the wildfires, unrivaled in their intensity and destruction, in western U.S. states and Australia, or the Atlantic hurricanes of hitherto unexperienced ferocity, wreaking destruction of remarkable dimension, costs, and unpredictability. Even more surprising was the line of severe thunderstorms racing across the central U.S. with widespread winds of more than 100 mph, destroying crops and damaging structures.

These are just a handful of the extreme events over just the past year, each augmented by a warming climate, causing pain and death and substantial economic loss. Unfortunately, the list could easily be expanded with other examples of severe storms, such as floods and droughts."

Extreme events 'presage worse to come' in a warming climate » Yale Climate Connections

Increased fatalities, pain, and costs provide a compelling case for taking action on climate change, three experts warn.

yaleclimateconnections.org

There even federal agencies under the control and scrutiny of Republican climate denying politicians had to acknowledge the urgent need for action.

"Changes in temperature and precipitation are increasing air quality and health risks from wildfire and ground-level ozone pollution. Rising air and water temperatures and more intense extreme events are expected to increase exposure to waterborne and foodborne diseases, affecting food and water safety. With continued warming, cold-related deaths are projected to decrease and heat-related deaths are projected to increase; in most regions, increases in heat-related deaths are expected to outpace reductions in cold-related deaths. The frequency and severity of allergic illnesses, including asthma and hay fever, are expected to increase as a result of a changing climate. Climate change is also projected to alter the geographic range and distribution of disease-carrying insects and pests, exposing more people to ticks that carry Lyme disease and mosquitoes that transmit viruses such as Zika, West Nile, and dengue, with varying impacts across regions. Communities in the Southeast, for example, are particularly vulnerable to the combined health impacts from vector-borne disease, heat, and flooding. Extreme weather and climate-related events can have lasting mental health consequences in affected communities, particularly if they result in degradation of livelihoods or community relocation. Populations including older adults, children, low-income communities, and some communities of color are often disproportionately affected by, and less resilient to, the health impacts of climate change. Adaptation and mitigation policies and programs that help individuals, communities, and states prepare for the risks of a changing climate reduce the number of injuries, illnesses, and deaths from climate-related health outcomes."

Fourth National Climate Assessment: Summary Findings

This report is an authoritative assessment of the science of climate change, with a focus on the United States. It represents the second of two volumes of the Fourth National Climate Assessment, mandated by the Global Change Research Act of 1990.

nca2018.globalchange.gov

 

[longview]

World leading universities like Harvard, Yale and also MIT have taken a clear stand that their are an urgent need for action on climate change. There those prestigious universities would of course lose a lot of prestige and in turn funding if those warnings was not based on strong evidence for a urgent need for action. Also those leading universities only get a tiny bit of their funding's from climate change research so the reward for that huge risk is very small.

Climate Science, Risk & Solutions

Climate Knowledge for Everyone

climateprimer.mit.edu

It would also of course be a massive risk for these 31 leading American scientific societies if their letter to Congress about the urgent need for action on climate change was not based on strong scientific evidence. Because there would of course lose a lot of credibility that could lead to less funding not only then it comes to climate change but in many other scientific areas if their warnings was not based on strong scientific evidence.

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

www.esa.org

That can't you see how ridiculous your baseless speculations and accusations are. You also need explain why Trump and Republicans in Congress didn't stop climate change funding if as you claim it was not based on strong and real evidence.

Did the loose much credit when they supported eugenics?
I wonder if they also suggested an urgent need for action related to eugenics?
No! Universities can take positions that turn out to be incorrect and survive!
In the moment, their position keeps the grant money rolling in.

 

[longview]

New nuclear power plants are getting delayed and way over budget.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20191028/french-nuclear-power-plant-is-seven-years-late-and-costs-have-tripled/

While at the same time you are seeing a rapid build out of renewable energy.

When will renewable energy overtake coal and gas? | World Economic Forum

Renewables met 97% of Scotland's electricity demand in 2020

Scotland narrowly missed a 100% target but renewables output has tripled in the last 10 years.

www.bbc.com

You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you regulate.
The expense of nuclear power is mostly paper work related to each plant being custom!
Small nuclear reactors may change that!
There is also a massive difference in the quality of power generated from a nuclear plant , over wind and solar, mostly duty cycle!

 

[Bergslagstroll]

Did the loose much credit when they supported eugenics?
I wonder if they also suggested an urgent need for action related to eugenics?
No! Universities can take positions that turn out to be incorrect and survive!
In the moment, their position keeps the grant money rolling in.

Are you falsely claiming that there was a consensus for eugenics? Also are you claiming that those who fund research at, donate to and pay tuition to the world's leading universities don't care about scientific integrity? That world leading universities can according to you do what they want with impunity? Also you have not explain why world leading universities are so desperate for climate change funding that are only a tiny bit of their funding. That can't you see how ridiculous and anti science your baseless claims are.

There it also are not only Republican politicians in the US that deny the urgent need for action. That you also have Australian politicians that spends billions on propping up coal mines.

Adani mine would be 'unviable' without $4.4bn in subsidies, report finds

Exclusive: Carmichael mine set to receive subsidies, favourable deals and tax concessions over 30 years

www.theguardian.com

So Australian politicians could just like Republican politicians stop climate change research if it was not based on strong scientific evidence and instead fund research that disproved the urgent need for action. There the results are instead that Australian federal agencies continue to acknowledge the effects of climate change. Just like American federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of Republicans did.

"Controlling for non-climate factors, we find changes in climate since 2000 have reduced average annual broadacre farm profits by 22%, or around $18,600 per farm (see Table 1).

These effects have been most pronounced in the cropping sector, reducing average profits by 35%, or $70,900 for a typical cropping farm. This includes a negative effect on cropping revenue of 8% or around $82,000 per cropping farm. Nationally, this represents an average loss in revenue (gross value of production) for the broadacre cropping industry of around $1.1 billion a year (based on 2015–16 to 2017–18 production levels).

While beef farms have been less affected overall, with a reduction in average profits of 5%, some beef farming regions have been affected more than others, particularly south-western Queensland (Figure 7). The analysis finds that overall broadacre farming has been adversely effected in all states and territories, except the Northern Territory (see Table 1)."

The effects of drought and climate variability on Australian farms - Department of Agriculture

Authors: Neal Hughes, David Galeano and Steve Hatfield-Dodds

www.agriculture.gov.au

 

[Bergslagstroll]

You get more of what you subsidize and less of what you regulate.
The expense of nuclear power is mostly paper work related to each plant being custom!
Small nuclear reactors may change that!
There is also a massive difference in the quality of power generated from a nuclear plant , over wind and solar, mostly duty cycle!

Nuclear power have for example dominated American federal R & D spending.

Nuclear, Fossil Fuels Have Dominated Federal Energy R&D Spending

Nuclear energy has been the recipient of almost half of the federal government's energy research and development spending since 1948, according to a new assessment from the Congressional Research Service. Fossil fuels come in second.

www.forbes.com

Also that even countries France that today get 75 percent of their electricity from nuclear plan for a reduction in nuclear power and give up on new nuclear project.

France to cut nuclear energy reliance by 2035: minister

France aims to reduce the share of electricity produced by nuclear reactors to 50 percent from 75 percent now by 2035, Environment Minister Francois de Rugy said on Sunday.

www.reuters.com

France abandons research into fourth-generation nuclear-Le Monde

French state nuclear agency CEA has abandoned research into so-called fourth-generation nuclear reactors, newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.

www.reuters.com

While you are seeing a massive increase of renewable power all across the world.

‘Exceptional new normal’: IEA raises growth forecast for wind and solar by another 25% - Carbon Brief

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has raised its forecast for the global growth of wind...

www.carbonbrief.org

 

[longview]

Are you falsely claiming that there was a consensus for eugenics? Also are you claiming that those who fund research at, donate to and pay tuition to the world's leading universities don't care about scientific integrity? That world leading universities can according to you do what they want with impunity? Also you have not explain why world leading universities are so desperate for climate change funding that are only a tiny bit of their funding. That can't you see how ridiculous and anti science your baseless claims are.

There it also are not only Republican politicians in the US that deny the urgent need for action. That you also have Australian politicians that spends billions on propping up coal mines.

Adani mine would be 'unviable' without $4.4bn in subsidies, report finds

Exclusive: Carmichael mine set to receive subsidies, favourable deals and tax concessions over 30 years

www.theguardian.com

So Australian politicians could just like Republican politicians stop climate change research if it was not based on strong scientific evidence and instead fund research that disproved the urgent need for action. There the results are instead that Australian federal agencies continue to acknowledge the effects of climate change. Just like American federal agencies under the scrutiny and control of Republicans did.

"Controlling for non-climate factors, we find changes in climate since 2000 have reduced average annual broadacre farm profits by 22%, or around $18,600 per farm (see Table 1).

These effects have been most pronounced in the cropping sector, reducing average profits by 35%, or $70,900 for a typical cropping farm. This includes a negative effect on cropping revenue of 8% or around $82,000 per cropping farm. Nationally, this represents an average loss in revenue (gross value of production) for the broadacre cropping industry of around $1.1 billion a year (based on 2015–16 to 2017–18 production levels).

While beef farms have been less affected overall, with a reduction in average profits of 5%, some beef farming regions have been affected more than others, particularly south-western Queensland (Figure 7). The analysis finds that overall broadacre farming has been adversely effected in all states and territories, except the Northern Territory (see Table 1)."

The effects of drought and climate variability on Australian farms - Department of Agriculture

Authors: Neal Hughes, David Galeano and Steve Hatfield-Dodds

www.agriculture.gov.au

Um, There was a large consensus on Eugenics, and the Universities were able to back away from it without much blow back.

 

[longview]

Nuclear power have for example dominated American federal R & D spending.

Nuclear, Fossil Fuels Have Dominated Federal Energy R&D Spending

Nuclear energy has been the recipient of almost half of the federal government's energy research and development spending since 1948, according to a new assessment from the Congressional Research Service. Fossil fuels come in second.

www.forbes.com

Also that even countries France that today get 75 percent of their electricity from nuclear plan for a reduction in nuclear power and give up on new nuclear project.

France to cut nuclear energy reliance by 2035: minister

France aims to reduce the share of electricity produced by nuclear reactors to 50 percent from 75 percent now by 2035, Environment Minister Francois de Rugy said on Sunday.

www.reuters.com

France abandons research into fourth-generation nuclear-Le Monde

French state nuclear agency CEA has abandoned research into so-called fourth-generation nuclear reactors, newspaper Le Monde reported on Friday.

www.reuters.com

While you are seeing a massive increase of renewable power all across the world.

‘Exceptional new normal’: IEA raises growth forecast for wind and solar by another 25% - Carbon Brief

The International Energy Agency (IEA) has raised its forecast for the global growth of wind...

www.carbonbrief.org

That makes me wonder if Nuclear Fusion is included in the nuclear power number.
Quite a bit of money has been spent on fusion research in the last 50 years.
When I came out of collage I was recruited by Los Alamos, they were saying that working fusion was only 30 years away,
that was 40 years ago!

 

[watsup]

Um, There was a large consensus on Eugenics, and the Universities were able to back away from it without much blow back.

Source please. We don’t believe you.

 

[longview]

Source please. We don’t believe you.

Perhaps you should read up on the subject!
INSIGHT: Eugenics. Segregation. U.S. universities facing racist pasts

Beyond teaching eugenics on campus – 376 American colleges were offering courses on the subject by the late 1920s –
these academic leaders and their followers worked hard to take eugenics ideas mainstream –
and did so “with considerable effect,” according to Harvard Magazine.

Those policies included new anti-miscegenation laws that criminalized interracial marriage. They also included forced sterilization programs. These programs affected all racial groups but especially targeted women, minorities and the poor. Eugenicists advocated effectively for forced sterilization in court cases that remained the law of the land for decades.
The eugenics movement also actively advocated in Congress for policies to prevent immigration by “undesirable”

racial and ethnic groups. And the movement succeeded. With the Immigration Act of 1924, Congress implemented
quotas that favored immigration from Northern Europe and drastically reduced arrivals of Eastern European, Jews, Italians and Africans.
It completely stopped immigration from Asia.

 

[Lord of Planar]

Nuclear power have for example dominated American federal R & D spending.

Nuclear, Fossil Fuels Have Dominated Federal Energy R&D Spending

Nuclear energy has been the recipient of almost half of the federal government's energy research and development spending since 1948, according to a new assessment from the Congressional Research Service. Fossil fuels come in second.

www.forbes.com

Yes. So?

Since 1948, look at how much was spent developing nuclear bomb technology, and making the bombs. Including that time-frame is hilarious for this discussion.

Can you break that down into post cold war times?

 

[Lord of Planar]

That makes me wonder if Nuclear Fusion is included in the nuclear power number.
Quite a bit of money has been spent on fusion research in the last 50 years.
When I came out of collage I was recruited by Los Alamos, they were saying that working fusion was only 30 years away,
that was 40 years ago!

I used to think we would have had practical fusion by now too. I realized I was wrong long ago.

 

[Linc]

Man can continue to generate trash for ‘sanitary’ landfills forever.