This post is about how science is being led by money and political goals. Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research. Now read CC post #310 about the hockey stick. Then read CC post #301. Mann is sitting at a level that passes out and controls a lot of that Climate Change money. The lawsuits are about the hockey stick being fraud science and Mann controlling the direction of the science. Instead of science controlling the direction of research.
Present this evidence for your claim that Mann controls funding or the direction of research!!!
Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research.
What's wrong with that?
How much went to salaries?
How much went to incentive bonuses?
How much went to stuff like this.
got no time for no mo, right now.
.
Here’s another example of where the money on “climate change” went -
M.R. Radcliff et al. 2017 hurricanes and aerosols simulation.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h1eRp0EGOmE
Published on Nov 13, 2017 by NASA Goddard
How can you see the atmosphere? By tracking what is carried on the wind. Tiny aerosol particles such as smoke, dust, and sea salt are transported across the globe, making visible weather patterns and other normally invisible physical processes.
This visualization uses data from NASA satellites, combined with mathematical models in a computer simulation allowing scientists to study the physical processes in our atmosphere. By following the sea salt that is evaporated from the ocean, you can see the storms of the 2017 hurricane season.
During the same time, large fires in the Pacific Northwest released smoke into the atmosphere. Large weather patterns can transport these particles long distances: in early September, you can see a line of smoke from Oregon and Washington, down the Great Plains, through the South, and across the Atlantic to England.
Dust from the Sahara is also caught in storms sytems and moved from Africa to the Americas. Unlike the sea salt, however, the dust is removed from the center of the storm. The dust particles are absorbed by cloud droplets and then washed out as it rains.
Advances in computing speed allow scientists to include more details of these physical processes in their simulations of how the aerosols interact with the storm systems.
Supercomputing 2017 conference: www.nas.nasa.gov/SC17/home. html
A damned good investment!!!
Intense storms provide the first test of powerful new hurricane forecast tools
Instruments are slated to improve predictions of path and intensity
BY CAROLYN GRAMLING 8:07AM, SEPTEMBER 21, 2017
https://www.sciencenews.org/article/intense-storms-provide-first-test-powerful-new-hurricane-forecast-tools
This year’s Atlantic hurricane season has already proven to be active and deadly. Powerful hurricanes such as Harvey, Irma and Maria are also providing a testing ground for new tools that scientists hope will save lives by improving forecasts in various ways, from narrowing a storm’s future path to capturing swift changes in the intensity of storm winds.
Some of the tools that debuted this year — such as the GOES-16 satellite — are already winning praise from scientists. Others, such as a new microsatellite system aiming to improve measurements of hurricane intensity and a highly anticipated new computer simulation that forecasts hurricane paths and intensities, are still in the calibration phase.
This post is about how science is being led by money and political goals. Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research. Now read CC post #310 about the hockey stick. Then read CC post #301. Mann is sitting at a level that passes out and controls a lot of that Climate Change money. The lawsuits are about the hockey stick being fraud science and Mann controlling the direction of the science. Instead of science controlling the direction of research.
Present this evidence for your claim that Mann controls funding or the direction of research!!!
Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research.
What's wrong with that?
How much went to salaries?
How much went to incentive bonuses?
How much went to stuff like this.
got no time for no mo, right now.
You would think that for $68B we would be getting more that consensual science and taken down a road to end up back to where we were at in the 1980’s before all these consensual reports from the money pile hit the news. When the scientists tell us that we must meet certain goals or the game for saving the earth is over. Then when it becomes obvious that those goals can not be meet. The scientists jiggle the numbers a little and say, forget the old goal numbers, the earth will be fine if we can meet these new numbers. And don’t forget to sign and send a check. Is this what you call science today? What I have seen is a grab for money and the hell with the science for the most part. Example, in today’s news. Deep frying food is causing climate change by helping to form clouds. Yet, it has been consensual science that the clouds balance out and have zero affect on global warming. So, what is one to think? CC, you yourself have stated that clouds have no measurable effect in global warming or was it Dougboy?
You would think that for $68B we would be getting more that consensual science and taken down a road to end up back to where we were at in the 1980’s before all these consensual reports from the money pile hit the news. {There is plenty of consensus science as has been shared with you countless times - you ignore it, or expecting some impossible level of precision. For you I already made a collection of important climate science milestones, all of which have withstood the test of time. But you refuse to look at that collection ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html ), you don't allow any of that to soak into your thinking - watt's up with that?} When the scientists tell us that we must meet certain goals or the game for saving the earth is over. Then when it becomes obvious that those goals can not be meet. The scientists jiggle the numbers a little and say, forget the old goal numbers, the earth will be fine if we can meet these new numbers.{You are speaking in make-believe what-ifs. You also conflate shock-jock journalism with scientific papers, maliciously dishonest tactic.} And don’t forget to sign and send a check. Is this what you call science today?{You're a jerk. Life costs money, why this idiotic melodrama???} What I have seen is a grab for money{I've provided dozens / hundreds of examples of $ investment in science has proving itself to be well worth every penny. I can't fathom why we as a people rather invest and spend millions, into the billions, on stupid Hollywood movies, while resenting the money spent on understanding the life supporting global climate system. But then I care about the good health of this planet that I understand as a living biological entity that we are absolutely dependent on. And you Mike you seem blind to all that. For some reason you don't want us learning about this planet that made us and that we depend on.} and the hell with the science for the most part. {Bullshit on your venomous fiction. Science is doing a damned good job (just look at those observations and model based renditions of the 2017 Hurricane season I linked to above.), way the hell better than the rest of our society!}Example, in today’s news. Deep frying food is causing climate change by helping to form clouds.{It's just a joke to you ain't it. Have you ever taken the time to look past the Alt-right jokes and learn about these stories to actually understand what they are really discussing, and pondering how that ties into the rest of the climate system? Probably not, you think our climate is some cartoon on a computer screen.} Yet, it has been consensual science that the clouds balance out and have zero affect on global warming.{ There's a lot more to the scientific understanding of clouds (in all their amazing variety) than your kindergarten joke hints at.} So, what is one to think? {That it demands honest curiosity and a good-faith interest in constructive learning focused on Earth's geophysics. } CC, you yourself have stated that clouds have no measurable effect in global warming or was it Dougboy?{Why do you keep bringing up things that you obviously know nothing about? MikeYohe, why must you always be so maliciously destructive in your musings???}
{Also worth noting is that MikeY always speak in vagaries, never clearly enunciating his doubts in an understandable constructive manner.
Instead, Mike focuses on adding confusion through smoke'n mirrors rather than focusing on clearly understanding real world facts.}
Oh you pop again with more bull shit.
You haven't a clue what scientists are really saying because you are too busy trying to weave your fiction.
Oh an you don't seem to care one bit about learning about this planet instead you're lost in some fiction
demanding absolute certainties, where none can exist. Same as it's always been.
I though you'd finally learned something or at least conceded and slunk away.
So
Why do you think it's okay to invest clueless theatrical quacks with the authority of real experts?
Why do you constantly make big claims yet provide no sources, references, objective resources for learning about the claims you make?
Why are you so unwilling to absorb the objective authoritative information you are offered?
etc., etc.
@ Mike Yohe,
68 Billion on research and monitoring equipment in 4 years is a pittance. There are CEO’s of large polluters who make that in 1 year. Then put in a tax free off-shore account. And are now asking for tax cuts .
The current tax proposal before congress will result in the billionaires on average will get a tax savings of $1000.00 per day, while the family making less than forty thousand per year, on average will get a tax savings of …wait…$0.20 per day.
And you are complaining we are spending too much on research to save the earth? Get real, man!
You may want to change the priorities of your concerns.
Apparently $68b wasn’t enough. It did nothing to prevent the recent devastating hurricanes in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and Puerto Rico.
Lois
I agree, after 250 years since the industrial revolution we are facing the greatest threat the earth has seen in thousands of years.
And we are talking about tax cuts for those responsible, instead of investing in renewable non-polluting energy?
This post is about how science is being led by money and political goals. Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research. Now read CC post #310 about the hockey stick. Then read CC post #301. Mann is sitting at a level that passes out and controls a lot of that Climate Change money. The lawsuits are about the hockey stick being fraud science and Mann controlling the direction of the science. Instead of science controlling the direction of research.
Present this evidence for your claim that Mann controls funding or the direction of research!!!
Between 2008 and 2012 $68B of taxpayers’ money has been used for climate change research.
What's wrong with that?
How much went to salaries?
How much went to incentive bonuses?
How much went to stuff like this.
got no time for no mo, right now.
Apparently $68b wasn’t enough. It did nothing to prevent the recent devastating hurricanes in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and Puerto Rico.
Lois
That's because the cause isn't being addressed, fossil fuel use is going up especially with the orangutan-in-chief trying to increase the consumption of coal and other fossil fuels.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fossil-fuel-use-continues-to-rise/
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/nov/13/fossil-fuel-burning-set-to-hit-record-high-in-2017-scientists-warn
The burning of fossil fuels around the world is set to hit a record high in 2017, climate scientists have warned, following three years of flat growth that raised hopes that a peak in global emissions had been reached.
The expected jump in the carbon emissions that drive global warming is a “giant leap backwards for humankind", according to some scientists. However, other experts said they were not alarmed, saying fluctuations in emissions are to be expected and that big polluters such as China are acting to cut emissions.
We have total contrarians setting policy globally and it is going to kill us all off.
Apparently $68b wasn’t enough. It did nothing to prevent the recent devastating hurricanes in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida and Puerto Rico.
Lois
I agree, after 250 years since the industrial revolution we are facing the greatest threat the earth has seen in thousands of years.
And we are talking about tax cuts for those responsible, instead of investing in renewable non-polluting energy?
Let’s look at what the earth should be doing. The sea levels rise 400 feet and then drop 400 feet every 100,000 years. 800 feet of movement or 9,600 inches of sea movement. That’s 960 inches every 10,000 years. 96 inches every 1,000 years. And around 10 inches every 100 years. Of course, the movements will not be smooth, and we shouldn’t expect the movements to be the same every one-thousand years. We are in the hottest part of the 100,000 cycles and we should see more ice melting. If we doubled the amount, we would have 20 inches. And that’s what NASA is predicting. Not the 20 feet CC and Doug is claiming. So, if the natural cycle could very well be 20 inches, where is the many feet of sea level rise from the CO2? I think many people do not realizes that we have just come out of the ending of the Little Ice Age and the earth is normalizing from the ending which was 1850 or 1940 depending on the scientist. The earth should be melting some of the ice from the Little Ice Age and be up a few inches on the century. I don’t see the earth is doing anything that extreme. Where are the numbers? Please show me in numbers the affect of Climate Change on the hurricanes. For $68B should we not have some numbers? Talk is cheap.
What is the problem the earth is having? Simple, to many people. How to fix the problem. Get rid of half the people. Anyone want to volunteer? :-)
The devastating hurricanes were predicted ten years ago because of upcoming solar cycle effects on our weather. So, yes, these are our main stream scientists like Dr. Curry who are not part of the $68B that are predicting the weather with good results. They are the people who the insurance industry and people like NASA are backing today. If we had listen to these scientists we had ten years to get ready for the hurricanes. I think we better wake up.
You would think that for $68B we would be getting more that consensual science and taken down a road to end up back to where we were at in the 1980’s before all these consensual reports from the money pile hit the news. {There is plenty of consensus science as has been shared with you countless times - you ignore it, or expecting some impossible level of precision. For you I already made a collection of important climate science milestones, all of which have withstood the test of time. But you refuse to look at that collection ( http://whatsupwiththatwatts.blogspot.com/2017/08/antti-lipponen-visualize-globalwarming.html ), you don't allow any of that to soak into your thinking - watt's up with that?} When the scientists tell us that we must meet certain goals or the game for saving the earth is over. Then when it becomes obvious that those goals can not be meet. The scientists jiggle the numbers a little and say, forget the old goal numbers, the earth will be fine if we can meet these new numbers.{You are speaking in make-believe what-ifs. You also conflate shock-jock journalism with scientific papers, maliciously dishonest tactic.} And don’t forget to sign and send a check. Is this what you call science today?{You're a jerk. Life costs money, why this idiotic melodrama???} What I have seen is a grab for money{I've provided dozens / hundreds of examples of $ investment in science has proving itself to be well worth every penny. I can't fathom why we as a people rather invest and spend millions, into the billions, on stupid Hollywood movies, while resenting the money spent on understanding the life supporting global climate system. But then I care about the good health of this planet that I understand as a living biological entity that we are absolutely dependent on. And you Mike you seem blind to all that. For some reason you don't want us learning about this planet that made us and that we depend on.} and the hell with the science for the most part. {Bullshit on your venomous fiction. Science is doing a damned good job (just look at those observations and model based renditions of the 2017 Hurricane season I linked to above.), way the hell better than the rest of our society!}Example, in today’s news. Deep frying food is causing climate change by helping to form clouds.{It's just a joke to you ain't it. Have you ever taken the time to look past the Alt-right jokes and learn about these stories to actually understand what they are really discussing, and pondering how that ties into the rest of the climate system? Probably not, you think our climate is some cartoon on a computer screen.} Yet, it has been consensual science that the clouds balance out and have zero affect on global warming.{ There's a lot more to the scientific understanding of clouds (in all their amazing variety) than your kindergarten joke hints at.} So, what is one to think? {That it demands honest curiosity and a good-faith interest in constructive learning focused on Earth's geophysics. } CC, you yourself have stated that clouds have no measurable effect in global warming or was it Dougboy?{Why do you keep bringing up things that you obviously know nothing about? MikeYohe, why must you always be so maliciously destructive in your musings???}
{Also worth noting is that MikeY always speak in vagaries, never clearly enunciating his doubts in an understandable constructive manner.
Instead, Mike focuses on adding confusion through smoke'n mirrors rather than focusing on clearly understanding real world facts.}
Oh you pop again with more bull shit.
You haven't a clue what scientists are really saying because you are too busy trying to weave your fiction.
Oh an you don't seem to care one bit about learning about this planet instead you're lost in some fiction
demanding absolute certainties, where none can exist. Same as it's always been.
I though you'd finally learned something or at least conceded and slunk away.
So
Why do you think it's okay to invest clueless theatrical quacks with the authority of real experts?
Why do you constantly make big claims yet provide no sources, references, objective resources for learning about the claims you make?
Why are you so unwilling to absorb the objective authoritative information you are offered?
etc., etc.
My, my, all this coming from someone who agreed with the scientific check cashers that the climate science was complete in 2010. That is a fact. And that dealing with the CO2 alone was the problem and solution. And this was confirmed by consensual science. Telling the public that cow farts, pig shit and now fried foods are a cause of climate change. While criticizing our great American scientists like Dr. Judith Curry.
What I would like to see is tax dollar payment for numbers. Yes, we need more data for the models. Yes, we need more spending on data gathering systems. What we don’t need is most of the stuff you post that have no numbers. That may be because none of the past predictions you have backed, have come true and no one wants to put numbers on their work unless the prediction is twenty years away. And time keep ticking and we have come upon many of the twenty years predictions and they are turning out to be lies. And it is no wonder that people today don’t know the difference between climate change and global warming.
What I would like to see is total transparency in the reports and the amount of taxpayer’s money spent on these reports required to be part of the reports.
What I would like to see is a reimbursement clause in the giving out of taxpayer’s money. That is, if a scientific report turns out to be shoddy science, the taxpayer’s money will be returned.
When a new climate change report comes out claiming that we have a problem based upon climate change. I think of them as aspirin reports. This year it is bad for you, next year it will be good for you. Even the FDA keeps reversing its position on aspirin. Examples would be the melting taking place in the Antarctic. Yesterday it was climate change, today it is geothermal heat mantle plumes. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/11/07/nasa-volcanic-magma-plume-under-antarctica-may-explain-ice-sheet-instability/ Another is the coral dying off in the Barrier Reef caused by climate change. Now it may be coming back from the dead. How can that be if the climate change is still here? http://www.news.com.au/technology/environment/climate-change/eggs-discovered-in-bleached-coral-birth-new-hope-for-great-barrier-reef/news-story/4fd45204f25e9d8c98e5226b678afa31#.8n1mz
No different that CC’s posting new technology. I’ve been saying that is what was needed for years. CC claimed the science was completed in 2010. Now it is looking as CC is embracing the new technology data gathering systems. Why? When something is done and completed why would they still need to be studying the subject?
Point being, give me $68B and I will get scientists to prove, a movie, and several books that say all people on earth are over seven feet tall. And I will spend a couple billion on cancer research to show the money has been well spent.
Over the years I have not changed in my thinking that a global warming base line is needed to be able to measure the affects of climate change. To do this requires computer models and new databases. Consensual science can be used when properly administered. The fund management has negated the use of consensual science.
Climate science has taken two pathways. The Mother Nature pathway and the Al Gore pathway. Only one is correct. The only pathway that has not changed is the Mother Nature. The Al Gore pathway keeps changing all the time and keeps looking more and more like the Mother Nature’s pathway. Mother Nature includes all and everything earthly as well the solar environment effects on weather. Al Gore’s pathway says the CO2 is the driving and controlling factor on weather and that everything else is to small to have any measurable effect on climate change. But now it is looking like the Al Gore people are beginning to back pedal.
Keep in mind that Climate Change is only 3% at most, of Mother Nature. But today I think a lot of people believe Climate Change is as powerful as Mother Nature. Or has taken over Mother Nature. Today science is at the point of understanding the driving force of temperature. Once the driving force is understood then the earth’s thermostat will be studied. Once scientists understand how the thermostat works, then it will be time for actions and regulations at world levels. That is how science should work.
Mike Yohe said,
Keep in mind that Climate Change is only 3% at most, of Mother Nature. But today I think a lot of people believe Climate Change is as powerful as Mother Nature. Or has taken over Mother Nature. Today science is at the point of understanding the driving force of temperature. Once the driving force is understood then the earth’s thermostat will be studied. Once scientists understand how the thermostat works, then it will be time for actions and regulations at world levels. That is how science should work.
What you don't seem to understand that Mother Nature's Climate Change is a 100% result of Global Warming.
There are several causes which contribute to Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change. Human industrial air pollution is one of the causes of Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change.
Our task is to minimize human contribution to Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change. This is what we are studying, and we now know what the Human contribution to Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change is.
And that contribution is 250 years of ever increasing human use of millions of years of previously sequestered CO2 (which is a greenhouse gas) and adding it back into The Earth's (Mother Nature's) Ecosphere, in addition to cutting down millions of acres of forest which is Mother Nature's way of converting CO2, which bad and contributes to Global Warming, into Oxygen, which is good and contributes to good health of living things on Earth.
Therein lies our problem. All other Natural causes are irrelevant, we can only control Human contribution to Global Warming which causes Climate Change. It's not very difficult to understand.
The Earth's Climate Balance is due to Mother Nature's Terra Forming. The Earth's Global Warming and resulting Climate Change, is due to Human interference with this process and contribution to Global Warming and is resulting destabilization of Climate Balance. This is why we are now experiencing Climate Change, which is Mother Nature's response to our interference with Natural balancing of the Ecosphere.
Human's are the bad child that's lighting the matches, that will eventually burn down the house. But Mother Nature will give us a spanking from which we may not recover. Mother Nature's punishment is already becoming obvious by our Change in Climate patterns caused by Human contribution to Global Warming.
But Mother Nature is just beginning to punish Humankind and in the process also punish all other large animals which are adapted to Mother Nature's Natural Climate balance.
Mass migration is already in progress and it will get worse, until Humans stop contributing to Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change.
Remember the old saying; "Can't fool with Mother Nature". We now know that we are fooling with Mother Nature and that we better mend our ways because Mother Nature's punishment is harsh and will result in the death of millions of Humans and other large animals, which will allow Mother Nature to rebalance the Earth's Ecosphere and stabilize it's Climate.
I believe you mentioned China as the great polluter and that WAS true, but China has actually set goals to minimize their impact on Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change, while we are quibbling about the US industrial impact which is second only to China. Where are the goals to reduce our Impact on Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change?
What you don't seem to understand that Mother Nature's Climate Change is a 100% result of Global Warming.
There are several causes which contribute to Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change. Human industrial air pollution is one of the causes of Global Warming and it's resulting Climate Change.
Put another way, Weather (Mother Nature) changes by humans (Climate Change) is a 100% result of the cycle around the sun (Global Warming). It just does not work this way, sorry.
That is my point. People don’t understand. Climate Change is a sub-category of Mother Nature and has only been around since humans. And has only been noticeable since the industrial revolution. Climate Change is nothing more than the amount of change in the weather caused by actions of humans. It is not the result of Global Warming. Global Warming is part of the earth’s cycles that has been repeating itself every 100,000 years. The fact is that we are really in the Global Cooling part of the cycle right now. But do to the natural “LAG", we are expected to still have warming for many years yet.
We don’t know yet if Climate Change is a good or bad thing over time. So far, we got very concerned because people who said they were experts made predictions that sounded pretty bad for us and the earth. Now for the last couple of decades we have been hearing excuse after excuse of why science does not work, and these predictions do not come true. The main problem is that people first need to understand what weather is before they can say what climate change is. And that’s not happening. People are making claims and then the science is trying to backup the claims.
We are and have been in a glacial period for the last two and a half million years. It is known as the Quatemary Glaciation. Or some call it the Pleistocene Glaciation or the Current Ice Age. In the earth’s ice age weather, there are very short periods only lasting a few thousand years known as an interglacial period where the earth’s weather becomes very stable and warms up. We are just leaving an interglacial period. It is during this period of warmth that has allowed humans to expand and populate. It is a fact that humans do better in warm weather.
Some scientists are saying that climate change we have experienced may have extended the interglacial period for humans up to another three thousand years. If this is the case. Then we may want to continue climate change on Mother Nature up to three percent and keep the earth in the interglacial weather where humans are able to do much better. We need the computer models working to know for sure. And to see the big picture over a complete cycle.
We don’t know yet if Climate Change is a good or bad thing over time.
You underscore how totally disconnected and deluded you are.
How I wish I could do a mind meld with one of your tribe -
I can not fathom the cartoonish one dimensional "appreciation" you must have for this living planet Earth, her history and her ways and means. I say this because of the stupid shit that pours out of your keyboard, such as all those useless repetitive paragraphs up there. Dunning-Kruger] all the way.
And I thought you were going to share something about what you've learned. :roll:
All these precious irreplaceable decades and all we did was suck off the boobtube and create a nation of disinterested clueless ants like my pal. :down:
But there's something more maliciously cruel going on here. Mike personifies that total disregard for what's happening to other nations, we don't care about what the bombs we drop do, how could we care about the environmental climate change driven devastations that have created and continue creating real time living hells for increasing millions of peoples of third world countries.* We spent the past century sucking them dry, and now the shits hitting the fan.
Catastrophic climate change is a living reality for increasing millions and while reptilian hearts turn a blind eye and convince themselves they are insulated. We are, but only for a while, it will catch up with us.
Oh and Mike beside repeating yourself, you also shamelessly repeated a number of blatant lies - that's all you got.
Of course there's also the hiding from all the serious simple questions you've been challenged with.
*
https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/map-of-climate-change-hotspots-3502
http://www.climatehotmap.org
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs266/en/
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/
CC, “Catastrophic climate change" is an alarmist term. Also known as “Runaway climate change". Could you expand on and explain more about what you are talking about. And put some numbers on your claims. Mostly what I see you are doing is claiming mankind is responsible for what Mother Nature is doing. The way you have explained how CO2 works in the past, is that the CO2 gets into the air and stays there for centuries heating up the earth. We have reached the point where the CO2 levels are past the point of stopping the “runaway climate change". So, what can mankind do? No problem, the scientists who gave us those numbers had an answer. Throw the numbers away and replace them with new numbers to keep the idea alive that all we have to do is, tax the Americans and send that money to these third world counties to fix climate change. Is this not correct?
Yeah, it should have been used to kill more terrorists and innocent bystanders in Iraq and Afghanistan.
4 innocent bystanders per terrorist is acceptable.
/* sarcasm alert */
psik
CC, “Catastrophic climate change" is an alarmist term.
Oh so you still don't realize that we are in an ALARMING situation.
How deep into the sand can you go?
Harvey or Maria weren't catastrophic enough for you? How horrific do you want it to get before you are impressed?
Incidentally,
Announcement: Moody's: Climate change is forecast to heighten US exposure to economic loss placing short- and long-term credit pressure on US states and local governments
https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-Climate-change-is-forecast-to-heighten-US-exposure-to--PR_376056
Global Credit Research - 28 Nov 2017
New York, November 28, 2017 -- The growing effects of climate change, including climbing global temperatures, and rising sea levels, are forecast to have an increasing economic impact on US state and local issuers. This will be a growing negative credit factor for issuers without sufficient adaptation and mitigation strategies, Moody's Investors Service says in a new report.
The report differentiates between climate trends, which are a longer-term shift in the climate over several decades, versus climate shock, defined as extreme weather events like natural disasters, floods, and droughts which are exacerbated by climate trends. Our credit analysis considers the effects of climate change when we believe a meaningful credit impact is highly likely to occur and not be mitigated by issuer actions, even if this is a number of years in the future.
Climate shocks or extreme weather events have sharp, immediate and observable impacts on an issuer's infrastructure, economy and revenue base, and environment. As such, we factor these impacts into our analysis of an issuer's economy, fiscal position and capital infrastructure, as well as management's ability to marshal resources and implement strategies to drive recovery.
Extreme weather patterns exacerbated by changing climate trends include higher rates of coastal storm damage, more frequent droughts, and severe heat waves. These events can also cause economic challenges like smaller crop yields, infrastructure damage, higher energy demands, and escalated recovery costs.
"While we anticipate states and municipalities will adopt mitigation strategies for these events, costs to employ them could also become an ongoing credit challenge," Michael Wertz, a Moody's Vice President says. "Our analysis of economic strength and diversity, access to liquidity and levers to raise additional revenue are also key to our assessment of climate risks as is evaluating asset management and governance."
One example of climate shock driving rating change was when Hurricane Katrina struck the City of New Orleans (A3 stable). In addition to widespread infrastructure damage, the city's revenue declined significantly and a large percentage of its population permanently left New Orleans.
"US issuer resilience to extreme climate events is enhanced by a variety of local, state and federal tools to improve immediate response and long-term recovery from climate shocks," Wertz says.
For issuers, the availability of state and federal resources is an important element that broadens the response capabilities of local governments and their ability to mitigate credit impacts. As well, all municipalities can benefit from the deployment of broader state and federal aid, particularly disaster aid from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to help with economic recovery.
Moody's analysts weigh the impact of climate risks with states and municipalities' preparedness and planning for these changes when we are analyzing credit ratings. Analysts for municipal issuers with higher exposure to climate risks will also focus on current and future mitigation steps and how these steps will impact the issuer's overall profile when assigning ratings.
The report "Environmental Risks -- Evaluating the impact of climate change on US state and local issuers," is available to Moody's subscribers at http://www.moodys.com/researchdocumentcontentpage.aspx?docid=PBM_1071949.
https://www.moodys.com/sites/products/ProductAttachments/Climate_trends_infographic_moodys.pdf
CC, “Catastrophic climate change" is an alarmist term.
Yes it is.
Some people are too dumb to figure out what is worth getting alarmed about.
This really can't be a big deal. Who cares if 3 billion people starve to death by 2070?
The problem is uncertainty about the future because some things are impossible to know. We can only try to make the best possible extrapolations on the basis of what we do know. We know most houses are not going to burn down this year or next year. How many homes have fire insurance?
psik