hot enough for ya?

[Gene]

They quote climate science in the low billions. That means it is not grants ($200K here and there) it is big things like satellites and supercomputers an what-not.

I've seen figures close to $5 billion. In the US. I am not sure if this includes funding given by European and Asian Governments though I doubt it. The British "Climategate" email scandal suggests non-US funding.

I am not sure if this figure is direct Fed Gov NSF grants. I am not sure if this includes NOAA and NASA and other agency staffing. I am not sure if this includes Corporate Foundation funding, fellowships, sponsorships and so on.

The US Climate Action Partnership has a bunch of heavy hitters -

Alcoa, BP America, Caterpillar Inc., Duke Energy, DuPont
Environmental Defense, FPL Group, General Electric, Lehman Brothers
Natural Resources Defense Council, Pew Center on Global Climate Change
PG&E Corporation, PNM Resources, and World Resources Institute

In April, 2007 oil giant ConocoPhillips and insurer AIG joined USCAP.[4]

The following groups and companies joined in June 2007:[5]

American International Group (AIG), Alcan, Boston Scientific, ConocoPhillips
Deere & Company, The Dow Chemical Company, General Motors Corp.
Johnson & Johnson, Marsh, PepsiCo, Shell
Siemens, The Nature Conservancy, The National Wildlife Federation

In July, 2007, two major U.S. automakers joined:[5]

Chrysler, Ford Motor Company

I live not far from Alcoa's Corporate headquarters and know employees. They assure me that Alcoa offers "fellowship" for research work. Ain't sure if this includes climate research.


Anyone else believe that with billions of subsidized guaranteed "Green Energy" projects that these companies aren't handing out "research" monies?

What of the large Banking interests who float bonds and loans for these "Green Energy" projects? Green Energy projects which sell power to captive electric power consumers. Guaranteed profit streams. Some of them have Foundations and Philanthropic institutes.


If a bunch of people are fixing to make money and can hire scientific talent will they keep on giving money to "naysayers"? Grants ain't issued to people who deny the fundamentals, right?


Follow the money. Cause to me this whole thing stinks.

[Sangoma]

This is a good example how one issue is swapped for another:

Climate denial and human rights by Richard Parncutt

In October 2012, I put a text in the internet that was inappropriately and misleadingly entitled "Death penalty for global warming deniers?" The title was deliberately ambiguous, with the intention of promoting public discussion of a crucially important issue. In this regard, it was successful, but only for a few days.

The idea behind introducing the death penalty to the argument was to attract attention to the rights and suffering of untold millions of people whose lives are being threatened by our callous greed (which is a reasonable expression to use, given the enormous consequences). I'm still waiting for these problems to be taken seriously. I am still surrounded by well-meaning people, many of them politically active "lefties" (and some highly influential), who are effectively ignoring these issues or pretending that they don't exist. Even those who like to talk about moral courage (Zivilcourage) are silent on the main issues: the future death toll in connection with global warming, who is primarily responsible, and how to stop this mega-crime. How far do you have to go before people realise? If a deliberately provocative text about the death penalty doesn't wake people up, what will? Perhaps I should change my citizenship to Martian, in protest?

Obviously, this is nothing to do with wars for imaginary reasons, exploitation of the Third World and growing disparity between the poor and the rich as the result of maximizing the profits whatever it takes. Not about some having fortunes running into tens of billions while others have to survive on $1 a day. It's all about the weather, and those who doubt it should be severely punished. Not those who actually start wars and financial crises. While many real reasons can be addressed efficiently the governments choose to dwell on the uncertain, controversial and often unproven, all of which are vague enough to keep "working on" for generations to come.

I think malaria so far killed way more people than hot weather, and providing treatment for the whole of Africa is worth of hour's profit of Dow Jones corporation.

[Blaidd Drwg]

Pointing out the failure of social justice nutters to be relevant says nothing about the scientific process involved in the correctness or incorrectness of the underlying theory of ACC.

[Turdacious]

I think malaria so far killed way more people than hot weather, and providing treatment for the whole of Africa is worth of hour's profit of Dow Jones corporation.

Rachel Carson is why they can't have nice things.

[Sangoma]

Never mind.

[DrDonkeyLove]

I think malaria so far killed way more people than hot weather, and providing treatment for the whole of Africa is worth of hour's profit of Dow Jones corporation.

Rachel Carson is why they can't have nice things.

Rant warning issued.

The lives of tens of millions of children dead from malaria is a small price to pay. Some think Rachel Carson was a fraud but we think in stories and the story that sticks is the poor mommy bird looking at her cracked eggs and cawing forlornly. Apparently no one's written a book about broken hearted third world mothers who've lost their babies to malaria. If they have, it hasn't become a big deal.

Today I rode in a car from Mumbai to Pune and back; it's about 100 miles each way. There are 20 million people in the greater Mumbai area and the air was filthy the entire trip (think 70's Los Angeles filthy). I don't know where it gets clean again. Present day Los Angeles is, by comparison, a Rocky Mountain clean air paradise. It's a problem that needs to be dealt with.

But, at what cost and under who's direction? The people I saw are not close to being rich and many are just starting to taste an almost decent life style. Some still live under sticks and tarps; I saw them today.

How do 1 billion relatively prosperous Americans and Europeans with strong environmental standards put ourselves in the shoes of the mostly poor other 6 billion people on the planet as we deal with so-called climate change? Do we think that we have the ability to carry the carbon filth of the rest of the world on our fragile economy's back? Climate change or not, the air pollution problem appears monumental.

The good news is that they are trying to green things up on their own. In fact, I'm here for an Indian generated green building conference that's supposedly being attended by high flyers in Indian manufacturing.

[nafod]

In fact, I'm here for an Indian generated green building conference that's supposedly being attended by high flyers in Indian manufacturing.

Where are you pooping?

http://qz.com/661119/toilets-toilets-ev ... e-shit-go/

Toilet, toilet everywhere in India, but where does all the shit go?

According to estimates, about 80% of the sewage in India flows into rivers, lakes and ponds. This sewage is untreated and pollutes water bodies. It also often seeps underground, which is a cause of concern, since drinking water is primarily sourced from groundwater.

[DrDonkeyLove]

In fact, I'm here for an Indian generated green building conference that's supposedly being attended by high flyers in Indian manufacturing.

Where are you pooping?

http://qz.com/661119/toilets-toilets-ev ... e-shit-go/

Toilet, toilet everywhere in India, but where does all the shit go?

According to estimates, about 80% of the sewage in India flows into rivers, lakes and ponds. This sewage is untreated and pollutes water bodies. It also often seeps underground, which is a cause of concern, since drinking water is primarily sourced from groundwater.

This sir, is an important question as last night I made a consistent contribution to the problem.

On a human waste side note, I believe the entire city carries the distinct smell of piss everywhere.

[dead man walking]

climate change in the third world

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/opini ... ef=opinion

[Turdacious]

climate change in the third world

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/20/opini ... ef=opinion

Friedman's track record for being right is pretty poor, and that's a subpar effort by even his standards.

A better writeup: http://focus-migration.hwwi.de/Senegal.2636.0.html?&L=1
Senegalese migration is not a new phenomenon.

According to the World Bank, about 463,000 Senegalese (or 4% of the population) were living abroad in 2005.23 The results of a household survey carried out by the Senegalese Ministry of Economy and Finance show that 76% of urban households and 70% of households nationwide have at least one family member abroad. The majority of these have returned to Senegal since the war started in 2002. The number of Senegalese in Mauritania is estimated at 50,000 to 60,000, while Mali accommodates about 30,000. The Senegalese population in Guinea-Bissau consists of between 10,000 and 20,000 persons.

There is a tendency for Senegalese migrants to remain in the destination country for long periods, even though a significant proportion of irregular migrants in industrial countries are deported within a short time. In general, however, Senegalese migrants plan their stays abroad as short-term experiences. A study based on a sample of migrants residing in Germany shows that their wish for early repatriation has not been realised for a large number of reasons

[dead man walking]

the children's crusade marches on

Against all odds, the 21 children, ages 8 to 19, who are suing the government to protect the environment against the harm of global warming in their future, have won in court.

Again.

In a surprise ruling on Friday from the bench in the ongoing climate case brought by these youths against the State of Washington’s Department of Ecology, King County Superior Court Judge Hollis Hill ordered the Department of Ecology to promulgate a carbon emissions reduction rule by the end of 2016 and make recommendations to the state legislature on science-based greenhouse gas reductions in the 2017 legislative session. Judge Hill also ordered the Department of Ecology to consult with the young plaintiffs in advance of that recommendation.

[Sangoma]

The shit is getting seriously fucked up.

[dead man walking]

the consequences of climate change and how they are costing you money

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.

[nafod]

the consequences of climate change and how they are costing you money

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.

I wonder who gets Bangladesh?

[Turdacious]

the consequences of climate change and how they are costing you money

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.

First time I've heard of Indian relocation being done in the name of climate change; 10-1 oil is discovered there soon.

[dead man walking]

the consequences of climate change and how they are costing you money

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.

First time I've heard of Indian relocation being done in the name of climate change; 10-1 oil is discovered there soon.

if by "soon" you mean by the end of 2016, i'll take those odds.

my $10 to your $100..

[Turdacious]

the consequences of climate change and how they are costing you money

In January, the Department of Housing and Urban Development announced grants totaling $1 billion in 13 states to help communities adapt to climate change, by building stronger levees, dams and drainage systems.

One of those grants, $48 million for Isle de Jean Charles, is something new: the first allocation of federal tax dollars to move an entire community struggling with the impacts of climate change. The divisions the effort has exposed and the logistical and moral dilemmas it has presented point up in microcosm the massive problems the world could face in the coming decades as it confronts a new category of displaced people who have become known as climate refugees.

First time I've heard of Indian relocation being done in the name of climate change; 10-1 oil is discovered there soon.

if by "soon" you mean by the end of 2016, i'll take those odds.

my $10 to your $100..

Do you seriously think a federal grant can get approved, disbursed, and fully implemented-- and the people moved out-- in less than seven months? That kind of government efficiency exists only on a planet where it's smart to have blind faith in climate scientists.

[dead man walking]

your post implies the oil guys already know the oil is there, so an announcement this year doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

what's your definition of "soon"?

[Turdacious]

your post implies the oil guys already know the oil is there, so an announcement this year doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

what's your definition of "soon"?

But then why would the Indians leave? The oil companies still have to get the leases and permits-- it's a ways off. But the idea that the feds are doing this in the genuine best interest of the Indians is laughable.

[dead man walking]

your post implies the oil guys already know the oil is there, so an announcement this year doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

what's your definition of "soon"?

But then why would the Indians leave? The oil companies still have to get the leases and permits-- it's a ways off. But the idea that the feds are doing this in the genuine best interest of the Indians is laughable.

you are the unartful dodger.

doesn't matter when the indians leave or whether anyone gets leases and permits. the question is, when will oil be discovered?

"soon," i.e. by the end of the year? or not?

i already know what i'm gonna do with the money i win off you.

[Turdacious]

your post implies the oil guys already know the oil is there, so an announcement this year doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

what's your definition of "soon"?

But then why would the Indians leave? The oil companies still have to get the leases and permits-- it's a ways off. But the idea that the feds are doing this in the genuine best interest of the Indians is laughable.

you are the unartful dodger.

doesn't matter when the indians leave or whether anyone gets leases and permits. the question is, when will oil be discovered?

"soon," i.e. by the end of the year? or not?

i already know what i'm gonna do with the money i win off you.

Donate it to Uncle Bernie's campaign? Is he really that desperate for financing?

[dead man walking]

your post implies the oil guys already know the oil is there, so an announcement this year doesn't strike me as unreasonable.

what's your definition of "soon"?

But then why would the Indians leave? The oil companies still have to get the leases and permits-- it's a ways off. But the idea that the feds are doing this in the genuine best interest of the Indians is laughable.

you are the unartful dodger.

doesn't matter when the indians leave or whether anyone gets leases and permits. the question is, when will oil be discovered?

"soon," i.e. by the end of the year? or not?

i already know what i'm gonna do with the money i win off you.

Donate it to Uncle Bernie's campaign? Is he really that desperate for financing?

ima spend it on the the dead man walking prodigious pleasure frolic

[dead man walking]

As climate change worsens around the world . . . [o]ne notable effect has been the disappearance of five Solomon Islands in the West Pacific due to rising sea levels.

According to a new study published in Environmental Research Letters, five vegetated reef islands have vanished. . . In two instances, fishing communities have been relocated because of shoreline erosion.

[Turdacious]

Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.

What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.

What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wh ... ience.aspx

[DrDonkeyLove]

Lysenkoism, a pseudo-biological theory that plants (and people) could be trained to change their heritable natures, helped starve millions and yet persisted for decades in the Soviet Union, reaching its zenith under Nikita Khrushchev. The theory that dietary fat causes obesity and heart disease, based on a couple of terrible studies in the 1950s, became unchallenged orthodoxy and is only now fading slowly.

What these two ideas have in common is that they had political support, which enabled them to monopolise debate. Scientists are just as prone as anybody else to “confirmation bias”, the tendency we all have to seek evidence that supports our favoured hypothesis and dismiss evidence that contradicts it—as if we were counsel for the defence. It’s tosh that scientists always try to disprove their own theories, as they sometimes claim, and nor should they. But they do try to disprove each other’s. Science has always been decentralised, so Professor Smith challenges Professor Jones’s claims, and that’s what keeps science honest.

What went wrong with Lysenko and dietary fat was that in each case a monopoly was established. Lysenko’s opponents were imprisoned or killed. Nina Teicholz’s book The Big Fat Surprise shows in devastating detail how opponents of Ancel Keys’s dietary fat hypothesis were starved of grants and frozen out of the debate by an intolerant consensus backed by vested interests, echoed and amplified by a docile press.

This is precisely what has happened with the climate debate and it is at risk of damaging the whole reputation of science. The “bad idea” in this case is not that climate changes, nor that human beings influence climate change; but that the impending change is sufficiently dangerous to require urgent policy responses.

http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/wh ... ience.aspx

If it didn't require an urgent policy response, this august body of wannabe governors wouldn't be investigating Exxon and think tanks. It's ineluctable.