Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Stryder50]

We've seen this chart, and similar, paraded out thousands of times and always they expose the ignorance and incompetence of those who present such, showing they fail to grasp a key factor on proper use of statistical data. The chart presents a very small fragment of the larger scale of thousands to millions of years and as such is a tiny dot on the larger scales.

Data over the span of 145 years fails to reflect the larger trends of millions of years. On the following graph, your 145 year "data" is a barely noticeable dot on the larger measure and doesn't compete with the much grander scales of temperature displacements which are far greater than this minor flux of 1 degree C.

In fact, your graph, reduced into scale and scope of the above would not even be visible as a part of it.

So are we seeing gross ignorance or gross dis-information(lying) on your part ???

 

[Stryder50]

Customer-driven clean energy procurement, not regulation, is driving decarbonization

In 2022, voluntary renewable energy procurement deals by corporate and institutional customers were equivalent to 70% of the carbon-free energy capacity added to the grid.

www.utilitydive.com

Let those customers pay the full costs of such out of their own pockets and not out of any from other customers or taxpayers.

 

[Stryder50]

Does the source matter?

Partially.
Content matters more.
Content needs to be demonstrable of reproductive testing and validation.
Opinion/consensus is not data nor science.

 

[Stryder50]

1935 parts per BILLION = 1.935 parts per million = 0.001935/10,000 = NOT WORTH NOTICING !

 

[Stryder50]

1. Share up-to-date facts about the price of wind and solar energy
For many decades, producing electricity from renewable sources was expensive. So it’s understandable that your colleagues and friends would express concern about the costs. You can make them aware that for utilities, the price of producing electricity from renewable sources has plunged dramatically, rewriting old assumptions about how to tackle the climate problem. In fact, between 2010 and 2019, the cost of offshore wind fell by 29%, onshore wind by 40%, and utility-scale solar photovoltaics by an astonishing 82%, according to the International Renewable Energy Association.

Source please.

I doubt this is reflecting costs without inclusion of government subsidies. Nor real costs of mining, mineral processing, and manufacturing. Nor is it reflecting actual power generated return over lifetime of unit. Nor the more important costs, especially environment of disposal of premature wear-out of the units.

 

[Stryder50]

Lack of adaptation action is costly. Despite ongoing mitigation and adaptation efforts, economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes in the EU reached over half a trillion euros between 1980 and 2021. This signals an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures.
Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5. Measures resulting in a lower ratio require careful consideration because of the uncertainty of their economic costs and benefits.

"No link or credible source provided"

 

[Stryder50]

Lack of adaptation action is costly. Despite ongoing mitigation and adaptation efforts, economic losses from weather and climate-related extremes in the EU reached over half a trillion euros between 1980 and 2021. This signals an urgent need to speed up the implementation of adaptation measures.
Adaptation actions are cost-efficient when the benefit-cost ratio exceeds 1.5. Measures resulting in a lower ratio require careful consideration because of the uncertainty of their economic costs and benefits.

"No link or credible source provided"

 

[Stryder50]

At the local authority level — considered the bedrock of adaptive actions in the EU adaptation strategy (EC, 2021) — the median budget for adaptation declared by those authorities that are signatories to the Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy was EUR 535,000, with wide discrepancies in budgets between authorities (EEA, 2020b). Comparing the signatories with the smallest and largest total implementation budgets, the bottom 20% of local authorities, with a mean total budget of EUR 16,000, had on average 10 planned adaptation actions and had completed two. The top 20% of signatories, with a mean total budget of over EUR 51 million, had on average 16 planned actions and had completed five (EEA, 2020b).

No link or credible source provided

 

[Stryder50]

The five corrupt pillars of climate change denial

How to identify and understand different types of denial: scientific, economic, humanitarian, political and crisis.

theconversation.com

Authored by a funding hustler who says what he is paid to say.

"Mark Maslin is a Founding Director of Rezatec Ltd, Director of The London NERC Doctoral Training Partnership and a member of Cheltenham Science Festival Advisory Committee. He is an unpaid member of the Sopra-Steria CSR Board. He has received grant funding in the past from the NERC, EPSRC, ESRC, Royal Society, DIFD, DECC, FCO, Innovate UK, Carbon Trust, UK Space Agency, European Space Agency, Wellcome Trust, Leverhulme Trust and British Council. He has received research funding in the past from The Lancet, Laithwaites, Seventh Generation, Channel 4, JLT Re, WWF, Hermes, CAFOD and Royal Institute of Chartered Surveyors. "

 

[Stryder50]

The fossil fuel industry, political lobbyists, media moguls and individuals have spent the past 30 years sowing doubt about the reality of climate change - where none exists. The latest estimate is that the world’s five largest publicly-owned oil and gas companies spend about US$200 million a year on lobbying to control, delay or block binding climate policy.

Their hold on the public seems to be waning. Two recent polls suggested over 75% of Americans think humans are causing climate change. School climate strikes, Extinction Rebellion protests, national governments declaring a climate emergency, improved media coverage of climate change and an increasing number of extreme weather events have all contributed to this shift. There also seems to be a renewed optimism that we can deal with the crisis

It shows the increase in brainwashing the ignorant via fear, panic, and misinformation.
The issue isn't "climate change" since the climate is always changing.
The issue is if and how much might be caused by human actions.
We so-called "deniers" are denying that adequate proof has been shown that such is caused by humans

 

[Stryder50]

Renewable energy has two advantages over the fossil fuels that provide most of our energy today. First, there is a limited amount of fossil fuel resources (like coal, oil and natural gas) in the world, and if we use them all we cannot get any more in our lifetimes. Second, renewable energy produces far less carbon dioxide (CO2) and other harmful greenhouse gases and pollutants. Most types of renewable energy produce no CO2 at all once they are running. For this reason, renewable energy is widely viewed as playing a central role in climate change mitigation and a clean energy transition

So-called renewable energy devices require large amounts of carbon resources to compose their ingredients and manufacture. They also are costly to dispose of and not very recyclable. They fail to produce energy of enough value to offset their costs of production and use.

CO2 is essential to 99.8 % of life,Flora and usually 300 ppm is seen as a bare minimum for optimal existence and performance. Commercial greenhouse flora production often uses 800-1200 ppm of CO2 for maximum plant growth and yield, with no detrimental effect upon human workers.

 

[Stryder50]

According to Office of Management and Budget reports, federal climate change funding was $13.2 billion across 19 agencies in 2017. In the 6 agencies we reviewed, we found that 94% of their reported climate change funding went to programs that touch on, but aren’t dedicated to climate change, such as nuclear energy research.

We also found that OMB reports should include information on programs with climate change-related financial risks, such as disaster relief. We recommended that OMB provide information on these risks and further analysis in future funding reports

Link/Source

 

[Stryder50]

Commissioned by the British government and led by economist Nicholas Stern, the massive report was the first of its kind to quantify the costs to address climate change and its impact on the global economy vs. what would happen if the world continued emitting carbon pollution unchecked.

It found that cutting carbon emissions so that carbon dioxide peaked in the range of 450-550 parts per million would cost 1 percent of the GDP annually, but ignoring climate change could cause economic damage on the order of up to 20 percent of the GDP. Translated into real world numbers, the Stern Review put a price of about $85 per ton of carbon pollution emitted today, well above the current rate used by the U.S. of $40 per ton

Link/Source - ???

Dihydrous-oxide is also a greenhouse gas and currently pollutes at a volume of about 250 times that of CO2. You have any plans on curbing and reducing H2O emissions and atmospheric concentrations ???

 

[Stryder50]

The $2.8 billion in federal lobbying spending by the oil and gas industry from 1998 to 2023 dwarfs the roughly $429.3 million spent by environmental interest groups over the same period

Source/link ???

BTW, you neglect to include government funding$ of pro-ACC/AGW "research" and advocacy.

 

[Stryder50]

Although a significant majority of Americans have believed that the planet is warming since the late 1990s, the political cache of climate deniers has continued to fluctuate. Charles and David Koch, the billionaire brothers who were once co-owners of Koch Industries, built their wealth in large part from petrochemical production and refining oil. According to data from the University of Massachusetts, Koch Industries is one of the top 25 carbon polluters in the U.S.

As part of their vast network of political influence, the Kochs have directly financed dozens of groups that promoted climate change denial and obstructed policy solutions in Congress. Historically, much of their spending is directed toward “dark money” groups, whose political power expanded rapidly after the 2010 Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United vs. FEC removed limits on outside spending.

Source/Link ???

 

[Stryder50]

If you have no links, how do you know you are relying on experts?

I'm no expert on the subject either, but I do have logic, reason, common sense.

The so-called 'experts' have been predicting catastrophe for at least five decades now. But as each of their dire predictions come and go, they just shrug, move the goal posts on up the road, and make a new prediction that will keep the grant money flowing to them.

We have spent trillions and trillions in green energy projects that so far have not produced a single improvement in the climate so far as anybody can show us. Those trillions and trillions could have been used for things that actually benefit us. Measurable benefit.

According to the 'experts' of years ago, the ice caps and glaciers should all be melted now, the polar bear should be extinct, and our coastal cities should all be awash in rising seas. Violent and extreme weather should have greatly increased across the planet.

Well the ice caps and glaciers are still there, the polar bear population and health is doing just fine, and none of our coastal cities are underwater yet. The data shows that there is no trend to more hurricanes, tornadoes or other violent/extreme weather. There are more some years than others just as there has always been since humankind has been keeping track of that.

Maybe it's time we should stop being so gullible as to what 'expert' opinions are and start looking for maybe at least some of their predictions to come to pass before trusting that they actually have a clue re what our climate here on Earth will and will not do?

Speaking of "being so gullible as to what 'expert' opinions are" reminds me of the scam about Covid vaccines and how taking such would prevent one from getting Covid. Or any adverse reactions.

When the retort is "expert opinion" it's about 99% the bullshyte meter is about to go off scale.

 

[Mashmont]

Watch this get ignored:

View attachment 1150644
===

Meanwhile, increasing CO2 is causing increased plant growth all around the globe, which is increasing the food supplies of humans and animals alike. Here’s the data from NASA.

View attachment 1150646

===

Regarding heat, very hot days in the US (over 100°F, or 38°C) were much higher in the 1930s than at any other time in the last 125 years.

View attachment 1150647
===

How about the dreaded heat waves that are supposed to be an inevitable result of “global warming”? If you need something to worry about, that’s not it … the real danger is not heat, it’s cold.

View attachment 1150649

View attachment 1150648

=======

Consensus arguments does NOT address these facts/evidence of the charts, they are real and that is why they are valid.

What a devastating set of graphs. Like a Mike Tyson combination.

 

[EMH]

Damn, but you talk nonsense. Ah well, only every Scientific Society in the world, every National Academy of Science, and every major University say exactly the opposite of your nonsense. They all have policy statements that AGW is real and a clear and present danger. And now as we see the climatologists predictions happening, fires on every continent save Antarctica, extreme flooding events on all the continents, all at unprecedented levels, you continue to flap-yap and show yourself to be a fool. LOL

Science is not about

1. parroting
2. fraud
3. fudging data


and neither you nor any of those "climate scientists" can refute one word of that...

 

[80zephyr]

Magas hate science

Does science show that a man can become a woman?

 

[Foxfyre]

Speaking of "being so gullible as to what 'expert' opinions are" reminds me of the scam about Covid vaccines and how taking such would prevent one from getting Covid. Or any adverse reactions.

When the retort is "expert opinion" it's about 99% the bullshyte meter is about to go off scale.

I will agree there has been much disinformation deemed science re Covid. Given the HISTORY/experience with the vaccine, not necessarily the 'science', I have deplored those who have tried to scare or shame people into not getting the vaccine that I believe has saved many millions of lives as well as spared countless millions from more debilitating effects of the disease. And it was wrong to tell people the vaccine would do what it will not, both pro and con. And it was criminal to force people to take a vaccine they believed to be harmful.

It is equally wrong to pretend that draconian measures to combat climate change are actually doing anything about climate change, to scare people, especially children, that if we don't do all these questionable things we're all going to die or whatever. IMO it is criminal to profit from intentional disinformation and politically motivated spin that is put on science if it is even science.