Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report

[Toddsterpatriot]

Nuclear energy is carbon-free: a nuclear power plant does not emit any CO2, or any other greenhouse gases. But it is not renewable. Nuclear reactors use uranium, and if we run out of uranium, we can never get it back

We only have thousands of years worth of uranium.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

I am the one who posted that article you constantly avoid you stupid idiot!

Meanwhile this is still true as you have NOT posted a rebuttal to post one.

Molecular Regulation of Sexual Preference Revealed by Genetic Studies of 5-HT in the Brain of Male Mice - PMC

To whom should a male directs his mating? While it is a critical social interaction, little is known about molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling mammalian sexual preference. Here we report that the neurotransmitter 5-HT is required for male ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

We only have thousands of years worth of uranium.

Molecular Regulation of Sexual Preference Revealed by Genetic Studies of 5-HT in the Brain of Male Mice - PMC

To whom should a male directs his mating? While it is a critical social interaction, little is known about molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling mammalian sexual preference. Here we report that the neurotransmitter 5-HT is required for male ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

How many genders are there?

Molecular Regulation of Sexual Preference Revealed by Genetic Studies of 5-HT in the Brain of Male Mice - PMC

To whom should a male directs his mating? While it is a critical social interaction, little is known about molecular and cellular mechanisms controlling mammalian sexual preference. Here we report that the neurotransmitter 5-HT is required for male ...

pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Comparing apples and dildos.

Peer review is a fundamental pillar of science

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

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

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

Are you going to help Michael Mann pay off the legal judgments against him?

I think that's one of the five corrupt pillars of climate change.

The shift in public opinion means that undermining the science will increasingly have little or no effect. So climate change deniers are switching to new tactics. One of Britain’s leading deniers, Nigel Lawson, the former UK chancellor, now agrees that humans are causing climate change, despite having founded the sceptic Global Warming Policy Foundation in 2009.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

The idea that climate change is too expensive to fix is a more subtle form of climate denial. Economists, however, suggest we could fix climate change now by spending 1% of world GDP. Perhaps even less if the cost savings from improved human health and expansion of the global green economy are taken into account. But if we don’t act now, by 2050 it could cost over 20% of world GDP.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

For lobbying

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

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

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

10 Years on, Climate Economists Reflect on Stern Review | Climate Central

This is how climate change economics has grown and shifted since the seminal Stern Review was published.

www.climatecentral.org

 

[hjmick]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

By "unbiased" you mean it's a report that aligns with your beliefs on the subject.

That's just a different type of bias... confirmation bias.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

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

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

$200 million a year, versus hundreds of billions of tax dollars a year?

Some of the earliest scientific assessments of the impact of fossil fuels on the planet were undertaken mostly by fossil fuel companies themselves. A 2023 analysis from Harvard University researchers showed that Exxon Mobil made accurate warming projections in internal reports as early as 1977. Exxon never made their findings public, and instead embarked on a decades-long campaign to sow public doubt about the threat of climate change.

 

[Mashmont]

This will be ignored by climate cultists because this is beyond their ideological training to handle as their ignorance and stupidity prevents them from making a rational rebuttal.

Evidence carries the day not ideology or lies.

============

Real Clear Science

Finally, an Unbiased and Objective Climate Science Report​

By Rear Admiral Tim Gallaudet, Ph.D., U.S. Navy (Ret.)
August 16, 2025

Excerpt:

The recent report released by Energy Secretary Chris Wright on the climate impacts of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions in the U.S. has caused quite a stir in the climate science arena. “Outrage,” “pushback,” and “criticized” are the words used in many of the headlines about it.

To better gauge the overall opinion of the report, two journalists from the Associated Press asked members of the climate science committee if they believed that it accurately portrayed the current “mainstream view of climate science.”

Answering this question depends on how one defines “mainstream view of climate science.” If it is defined as the preponderance of climate-related publications in the journals Science and Nature, then the Department of Energy (DOE) report decidedly deviates from it, as both publications have been shown to be extremely biased towards alarmist climate narratives. Instead, Secretary Wright has performed a beneficial public service by contradicting the “mainstream view of climate science” with actual scientific evidence.

LINK

I am so giddy about this finding, I can't see straight. President Trump continues to bestow gift after gift on the US. I have literally had a bounce in my step ever since November 5. To think I no longer have to waste my tax money on this garbage! To think I won't be forced to buy cars I don't want!. The gift of freedom is SO wonderful!!!

I hope they scrap every single environmental directive of the past 30 years. Make HVAC affordable again. Make pressure treated lumber last decades again. Let's apply MAGA to every single aspect of our lives that the Marxist left has ruined.

 

[BackAgain]

The denialists keep bringing the issue of AGW up, mainly because they want to be able to understand.

They can't understand because it's too involved and deep for them

If any of them are capable of understanding, as is true of at least one of them, that one will make up his/her own science and then claim to be the expert.

Now let's hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

(don't leave out a few attempts to insult, and profanities are always popular!)

You’re a true believer. You can’t support it. And you obviously can offer nothing to even properly discuss the report about which this thread focuses on

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

We only have thousands of years worth of uranium.

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.

 

[Stuartbirdan2]

We only have thousands of years worth of uranium.

By 2020, federal political contributions from oil and gas industry interests reached $144.1 million, while spending from environmental groups stagnated at $57.9 million. In the years since, political contributions from the oil and gas industry have continued to outpace those from environmental groups

 

[BackAgain]

Challenging fukn assholes just turns the discussion to shit faster. Like as if one of them knows what math is?

Stay in your own lane.

Translation: you can’t bring the goods, so you lash out.

Feebly, at that.