JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks


Advertising


Australian Speakers Agency



GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper



Archives

Another Tech Oligarch with a billion dollars to give to a Uni for the “climate cause”

Remember when Uni students were “repulsed” at the idea that Bjorn Lomborg, an economic but not even a science skeptic, might get $4m from a legally elected government to set up a centre that was passively or actively rejected by every university in Australia?

How dangerous was that $4 million?

John Doerr gives $1.1 billion to Stanford for new climate school; largest gift in Stanford history

In the largest gift ever to Stanford University, Silicon Valley venture capitalist John Doerr and his wife, Ann, have agreed to donate $1.1 billion to set up a new school on the campus devoted to the study of climate change and its solutions.

These are not funds seeking to understand the climate. The people who work for him know exactly what he wants them to find. He’s a  longtime “clean tech” investor. His website is “SpeedandScale” and it’s 100%-non-stop-Decarbonium.  What happens, if theoretically, one of his researchers (or even someone else at Stanford) discovers the Sun drives climate change?

How can science flow unimpeded when it comes pre-packaged with funding for all the solutions to the “answers” the science is supposed to discover, and from a man who makes money on those solutions?

The gift, announced Wednesday, ranks as the second largest donation to any university in American history, behind $1.8 billion that former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg gave to his alma mater, Johns Hopkins University, in 2018.

The school is expected to propel Stanford, which already has considerable facilities researching energy and the environment, to the forefront of climate research among the world’s universities. It will be called the Stanford Doerr School of Sustainability.

Billionaires everywhere:

In addition to the Doerr’s gift, Stanford also received a staggering $590 million for the new climate school from other donors, many of them tech titans. Among them are billionaire Jerry Yang, the former CEO of Yahoo! and his wife, Akiko Yamazaki; David Filo, co-founder of Yahoo! and his wife, Angela Filo; the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation; and Susan Orr, daughter of Hewlett Packard co-founder David Packard, and her husband, Lynn Orr, a professor of engineering emeritus at Stanford.

John Doerr is another tech bubble guy:

He left in 1980 to join Kleiner Perkins, a venture capital firm on Sand Hill Road in Menlo Park. Since then, he rose to become chairman, helping lead early investments into companies such as Google, Amazon, Sun Microsystems, Compaq, Netscape, DoorDash and Slack.

And where does this kind of vast money come from? Not necessarily from people who provided widgets that other people needed:

US St Louis Federal Reserve, Money Base graph 1918-2008

US St Louis Federal Reserve, Money Base graph 1918-2008

Inflation starts with money supply and creates a wave of misallocated resources.

The graph comes from the post I wrote on January 2nd: 2022: The Year of Inflation.

And they say skeptics are funded by fossil fuels. If the science is so strong why are they so incredibly afraid of any tiny funding to check it?

h/t Marc Morano

9.9 out of 10 based on 65 ratings

167 comments to Another Tech Oligarch with a billion dollars to give to a Uni for the “climate cause”

  • #

    Why would anyone need that amount of money? I am led to believe that for “Climate Change”, the science is settled………lol

    290

  • #
    Ronin

    First.

    24

  • #
    PeterS

    Don’t be surprised to see spending by the West on climate change to accelerate. The United Nations has signed an agreement with Klaus Schwab’s World Economic Forum (WEF) to “jointly accelerate” Agenda 2030. As expected climate change is the next “pandemic”.

    With the pronouncement of a pandemic, the goal of comprehensive government control of the economy and society has taken another leap toward transforming the economy and society.
    Freedom faces a new enemy. The tyranny comes under the disguise of expert rule and benevolent dictatorship. The new rulers do not justify their right to dominance because of divine providence but now claim the right to rule the people in the name of universal health and safety based on presumed scientific evidence.

    41

  • #
    red edwards

    Look at the bright side. At least he isn’t giving that kind of money for longevity research. so he can keep pushing junk science for that much longer. . .

    91

    • #
      Ted1

      Don’t panic!

      They might forget where they started and come up with some honest answers.

      21

  • #
    David Maddison

    An excellent investment for the billionaire – for him, not for humanity.

    The once-reputable “university” will churn out highly brainwashed drones who will promote climate catastrophe and ensure a demand and market for Doerr’s investments.

    Of course, Doerr will also get tax advantages for this investment as well.

    Here (link below) is some more information about his political inclinations and contributions. No surprise he is a major supporter of the DemocRATs.

    https://ballotpedia.org/John_Doerr

    If he genuinely wanted to help people he could help rehabilitate the numerous homeless people in DemocRAT run cities in America, get them off drugs, educate and house them and help them get jobs.

    Or build cheap and reliable energy generation and distribution infrastructure such as coal, gas and hydro in Africa.

    But he doesn’t want to help other people, he just wants to help himself to the spoils of the anthropogenic global warming fraud.

    And now he is producing a billion dollars worth of more useful idiots to help him do it.

    360

    • #
      b.nice

      “the numerous homeless people in DemocRAT run cities in America”

      Democrats treat that as a feature, that doesn’t need fixing. That is how they want people to live. (except themselves)

      210

  • #
    NoDox

    Proper scepticism towards the fustercluck abomination and perversion of proper method and actual science is slowly making headway as the little people are beset on all sides by the dismissal of their concerns over energy prices in spite of promises of cheaper energy, blackouts and brown outs in spite of promises of reliability, and none of the disasters predicted for decades now actually showing up.

    Even my father, a die hard warmist is starting to admit I have a point when I ask how long the ‘experts’ can be consistently wrong on every financial, engineering, and climate prediction… and be considered legitimate authorities,

    Of course the leviathan is trying to play whack a mole with all their problems and tacitly admitting something is wrong via their increased demands for shut uppery and censorship.

    The bullsh*t is wearing thin and the cracks are showing. Especially in the polling which shows the vast majority wouldn’t spend more than a couple bucks a year extra to solve this fake problem

    310

  • #

    Btw he taught me science, as holder of a PhD in igneous petrology, and so I keep presenting examples of the abrogation of proper method climate ‘science’ is rife with, particularly the abuse of models used as if they are empirical evidence. I also make headway referring to the actual climate record showing we are well within the bounds of natural temp variation for the Holocene

    270

    • #
      David Maddison

      particularly the abuse of models used as if they are empirical evidence.

      Back in the day, it used to be taught that all models had to be validated to ensure they corrected reflected the data.

      Now they simply alter the data to reflect the models.

      330

  • #
    b.nice

    Look for Stanford to become another Potsdam, with myriads of unfulfilled “predictions” and useless erroneous and farcical comments from third rate non-scientists.

    161

  • #
    David Maddison

    Is John Doerr a real or made-up name?

    Is it a play on John Doe?

    Or an Anglicisation of Dörr?

    30

  • #
    b.nice

    “will accelerate solutions to global climate crisis”

    Solutions to a non-existent crisis…. almost certainly creates real crises, as we already see in electricity supplies in most once-were-developed countries.

    That is what invariably happens when you try to fix something that isn’t broken.

    190

    • #
      Tarquin+Wombat-Carruthers

      The saying used to be: “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it!”. The woke version is: “If it ain’t broke, fix it til it is!”.

      00

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here is an interesting article (link below) about how Obama and other Leftist celebrities had dinner at Doerr’s house in 2011.

    It’s like a who’s who of all the bad influencers of the world.

    Interestingly, unlike most other global warming catastrophists, Doerr appears not to have a waterfront property.

    https://searchengineland.com/obamas-silicon-valley-tech-supper-65412

    160

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    It’s a capitalist democratic world, surely a self made billionaire can spend his riches anyway he chooses.

    What this post, and the comments so far, are saying is that he should only spend on approved subjects. Who decides?

    032

    • #
      b.nice

      I can’t see where anyone said anything like that.

      We just think its a stupid waste on money, base on warped anti-science ideology.

      Interesting that you think this will actually contribute to the betterment of society in any way whatsoever.

      280

      • #
        b.nice

        And of course we know the utter manic uproar that would emanate from the far-left if a fossil fuel company even donated say $1M

        200

        • #
          ian

          “And of course we know the utter manic uproar that would emanate from the far-left if a fossil fuel company even donated say $1M”

          Time you got the picture b.nice. Fossil fuels are bereft of friends and won’t get funding from anyone except desperate governments trying to appease and assist those who will lose/are losing//have lost their jobs due to the global move away from the use of fossil fuels

          Why waste your energy looking over your shoulder at the desolate wasteland that used to be “the fossil fuel industry” and spend the energy in promoting the use of nuclear power?

          125

          • #
            b.nice

            Time you got the picture Ian.

            Fossil fuels have built every part of modern society.

            You and everyone else in modern society is totally dependent on it.

            It is only this moronic, woke, anti-CO2 nonsense that scientific imbeciles like you think is reality, that doesn’t like fossil fuels

            Meanwhile China and India are massively increasing their coal production.

            Germany reopening coal mines and coal fired power

            Asia going ahead with large amounts of coal fired power..

            And coal price continues to climb… because everybody wants it. !

            230

            • #

              Billionaires are free to set up their own institutes. If he has a billion dollars he can do that. If Universities are supposed to be Public Institutions they should be public institutions, not sold to the highest bidder.

              He’s just bought the Stanford name.

              If people donate money it should be to find the truth, whatever that may be, not to promote their own business interests with predetermined conclusions.

              Ask yourself if anyone will be free and encouraged to find alternative answers. Obviously they will not. Those will be quietly discouraged, buried, forgotten, or actively denounced by 100 immediately.

              Public and Private research should be separated immediately and completely, otherwise public research just ends up being the tool to support private interests. There is no competition for ideas. No one serving “the public”. No one seeking answers that isn’t motivated by profits.

              180

          • #
            b.nice

            Coal will get plenty of funding once the people realise that they cannot do without it. !

            Even mindless AGW wannabees will be yelling for more coal-fired power after a few long blackouts hit your inner city soy-latte hangouts.

            60

          • #
            b.nice

            I have nothing against nuclear electricity, its just that Australia has the some of the best thermal coal in the world.

            Modern coal-fired power is cheap, reliable, safe and feeds the world’s plant life.

            Why do we need nuclear !

            80

          • #
            b.nice

            Canada posts record fossil fuel exports.

            “Oil, natural gas, coal and refined petroleum exports hit a one-month record of C$17.4-billion ($13.6-billion) in March, according to data released Wednesday by Statistics Canada.

            Shipments totaled about C$150-billion over the past 12 months — also a record.”

            https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/05/climate-activist-canada-reports-record-oil-exports/

            Now, what was some fool saying about no-one wanting fossil fuels. 😉

            70

          • #
            Gary S

            There are many people, now retired from their long careers in the public service, including the mis-education sector, who are kicking back on their generous superannuation annuities which the funds earned largely through investments in mining and fossil fuel companies. These were very lucrative investments indeed and we should be happy for these lucky recipients as it now allows them to live out their twilight years in comfort. All thanks to the march of progress. Perhaps that’s why they call themselves ‘progressives’.

            11

          • #
            Simon

            ’tis true. Billions are being spent on ways of meeting our energy needs while reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Climate change denial funding has reduced to a pittance. I am a rational optimist, we will succeed with this.
            The universities wouldn’t touch the Tony Abbott / Bjorn Lomborg proposal because it wasn’t backed up by science. It’s right up there with eating raw onions and giving Prince Philip a knighthood.

            017

            • #
              Simon

              or raw chicken korma for that matter. What is it about Liberal politicians and uncooked food?

              012

              • #
                b.nice

                Many people eat uncooked vegetables.

                Were you unaware of that fact?

                I bet you eat them regularly.. or do you boil your lettuce?

                Never has sushi ?

                91

            • #
              b.nice

              “Climate change denial”

              There is no such thing except by those that deny natural climate variability.

              You are, as always, total on the wrong side of any actual science.

              The reasons for not looking at the Abbott/Lomborg proposals was purely far-left ideology not wanting the facts to be expose to their woke, virtue-seeking “safe-space” apostles.

              Why are you so upset about Tony Abbott eating raw vegetable.. I know hundreds of people who eat raw onion on sandwiches, kebabs .. all sorts of dishes.

              Why are you so upset about him granting the Queens’s request?

              Is that all you have.. irrelevant non-events ?

              “I am a rational optimist “

              No, you are a scientific and engineering ignoramus and certainly not rational in any way.

              110

            • #
              MP

              Pretty much everyone I know eats raw onion, but yes the Prince Philip thing was as pointless as your comments.

              00

          • #
            James Murphy

            I work in the oil industry, and the part of the company I work in, is on track for at least a 25% increase in demand for people, equipment between the end of 2021, and end of 2022 – to drill and complete new wells. We can’t hire people fast enough. the outlook is similar for the years ahead – increased demand, and I can tell you it’s a ruthless industry, as soon as the work dries up, people get fired, so this isn’t some wishful thinking by a mystic on a mountaintop.

            You’re trying to tell me that the fossil fuel industry is dying? Ian, you’re an idiot.

            150

            • #
              b.nice

              Ian, you’re an idiot.

              He’s probably not quite that bad. (that is Simon, PF territory)

              He just gets his opinions and mal-information from far-left rags and anti-science propaganda sites, which make him seem like one.

              Also his total lack of being able to think rationally for himself, always relying on opinion polls etc etc, doesn’t help.

              90

          • #

            China, India, Indonesia and many, many other Countries would disagree with you there. They are all building more of the HELE Coal fired Power Stations……………………….

            40

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        ‘We just think its a stupid waste on money, base on warped anti-science ideology.‘

        As I said, you do not approve. Who made you the judge on how money can be spent

        023

        • #
          Russell

          Funny how the left doesn’t appear to hold this view for Elon Musk.

          160

        • #
          b.nice

          ” Who made you the judge on how money can be spent”

          And where did I say he couldn’t waste his own money on whatever nonsense he wants to believe.?

          You have a warped imagination, and a huge lack of basic comprehension.

          100

    • #
      R.B

      It was about a huge amount of money for research that will have a predetermined conclusion. GWPF gets accused of this, although dishonestly.

      https://www.thegwpf.org/donations-and-our-funding-policy/

      120

      • #
        b.nice

        Yeah, I forgot it was PF who accused the GWPF of getting fossil fuel money, a tiny fraction of of this amount (and not even true)

        The rabid, disgusting hypocrisy of the far-left, exposed yet again.

        140

        • #
          ian

          “Yeah, I forgot it was PF who accused the GWPF of getting fossil fuel money, a tiny fraction of of this amount (and not even true)”

          It was a tiny amount but it did come from a company that had shares in fossil fuels.

          ” A small proportion (approximately 3%) of the Scaife Foundation’s assets are in energy company shares, but the suggestion that this constitutes a vested interest is risible.”

          https://www.thegwpf.org/donations-and-our-funding-policy/

          116

          • #
            R.B.

            You would expect that people who donate to have lots of money, a large portfolio and no qualms about investing some of it in fossil fuels. That doesn’t prove a vested interest. Getting donations doesn’t make an argument dodgy.

            But if you are the sort of fool that needs to be convinced by a consensus of those who have a job in a an accepted institution, then you follow the money trail.

            30

          • #
            b.nice

            “company that had shares in fossil fuels.”

            SO WHAT ! Tech giant money funding is somehow different.?

            Bet this tech twerp also has shares in unreliables, and almost certain hoping to make great gains from government subsidies in that area.

            40

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        they use a bagman – the US based ‘friends of the gwpf’ classic money laundering ie we do not have a direct connection to oil and gas money, so our hands are clean.

        08

        • #
          b.nice

          What a load of rubbish.

          But the left know all about laundering money from drug cartels, renewable energy scams, and whatever other illegal activity they can find

          Fossil fuels are not illegal.

          50

    • #
      David Maddison

      He can spend his money as he pleases, no one is arguing against that.

      There are two issues:

      1) The money, in practice, will be used for research to arrive at a predetermined conclusion, that is, climate catastrophe. In practice, no dissenting position will be allowed. But even that is fine, it’s just the reputation of the university that would suffer in a sane world if academic integrity still applied.

      2) The danger is where the climate catastrophe message is believed and becomes dogma and is legislated into law. When this happens the supposed solutions (to a non-existent problem) are legislated for purchase. This is how he and the other climate change billionaires make their money – taxpayers and consumers are forced to buy the fundamentally defective products these people are pushing. That’s how they make their money. Have you ever met a climate catastrophist leader who isn’t a billionaire or who doesn’t fly a private jet to climate conferences?

      230

      • #
        Peter Fitzroy

        ‘ The money, in practice, will be used for research to arrive at a predetermined conclusion,’
        so he can not spend the money as he pleases according to your judgment

        06

        • #
          b.nice

          “so he can not spend the money as he pleases”

          He did not say that. Its just your petty little fantasy.

          He was just pointing out what the money would be used for.

          ie… More climate-based scamming.

          50

    • #
      max

      Peter Fitzroy
      May 6, 2022 at 7:01 am · Reply

      It’s a capitalist democratic world,

      In capitalism you will not have big nanny government, no central bank, no fiat money, no social security, medicare, no standing army or police.

      system that all western nations live in is not capitalism.

      50

      • #
        R.B

        Peter outs himself as a water melon, crowing about using capitalism against itself. Why, though? Houses are not twice as much as when only a father worked, when accounting for inflation let alone who your neighbours are or if your dunny is inside.

        Milk was $25/L when baby boomers had it easy, in today’s money. An fj Holden was 64 weeks of average wage. 48 weeks of minimum wage,now, gets you a much safer equivalent car of $35 000. A Hyundai i30 is larger with 50% more power, and a well decked out one is that price on the road.

        An order of magnitude less people die from weather catastrophes, everybody lives longer and it’s all due to people being rewarded for being productive.

        40

    • #
      Mantaray Yunupingu

      Peter Fitzroy. I agree 100% that anyone wanting to blow their dough on frivolities can do it. Every time I see an infomercial promoting the newest / latest ab-blaster, super-slicer/dicer, wrinkle remover, etc etc I simply yawn, and marvel at how true the “sucker born every minute” line rings. Alternative Energy spruikers are no smarter.

      Ok, so where I live there is a brand new fossil-fuel service station with 12 pumps. 30 ks down the highway there’s a new truck-stop with 16 pumps and then in the next town (35 ks further again) yet another with about a dozen. Turn off the highway there for the coast, and in 20 kilometres another new one with about another dozen pumps.

      Meanwhile, I have never seen the various electric charging-points provided by the local councils ever being used. I also personally know no-one…have never heard of anyone….buying an EV.

      I then turn on the TV news and see “mass chaos at airports as millions flock to flights”. I take early morning strolls in country towns, and in Sydney and Melbourne where in all cases 3-4 fossil-fuel vehicles are parked (go walking early, before the residents take them to work etc). Can’t get a parking place in a Big-Smoke car-park. Etc Etc.

      All this adds up to; let the f’wits tell us how virtuous they are…and let the tech-oligarchs do their dough! just liars and clwons, i tell’s ya.

      81

  • #
    Anton

    We have seen this all before. US funding for climate science rose 15-fold in 6 years after an alarmist briefing to Congress in summer 1988, at which one speaker (Jim Hansen of NASA) had jinxed the air conditioning. Academic research which had been going on for decades quickly became politicised. Science faculties and job applicants knew that recruitment was a response to the alarm, and knew what proposals would attract grants. Other nations followed. Also, no warming effect other than greenhouse gases was then known (apart from the earth’s orbit, which is easy to account for, and a short-term solar cycle). So scientists were able to include only CO2 in their computer models. More work then sought to match the models to the data, doubling down on CO2 as the factor causing global climate change. Young researchers are taught the CO2 model, and either commit to it or leave at junior level. Most journal editors reject papers outside this paradigm. The people best able to see what is happening on are physicists in other fields who have the expertise to educate themselves to read the climate literature, but who aren’t indoctrinated into this model. They get criticised as non-specialists, but quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

    200

    • #
      b.nice

      “More work then sought to match the models to the data”

      Ummm.. NO.. it was the other way around.

      100

    • #
      Ross

      What your are describing is groupthink. Simple solution – retract all research funds into CO2 emissions etc, because we have been told this is the ONLY cause of climate change on our planet. But, then say to all the researchers we will give the same amount of funding into research for all the other possible causes of climate change. I wonder what the reaction would be?

      60

  • #
    David Maddison

    Now there is trend for billionaires to “donate” funds for causes to enrich themselves.

    Will Zuckerberg now be donating to the George Orwell School of Truth?

    110

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    This is a very useful post in the present times because it forces people to try to make sense of a situation that is, on the surface, downright crazy.

    How is it that someone can amass so much disposable wealth; how have we come to the point that we can ignore real science and watch it replaced by advertising and mass hypnosis.

    These are just a couple of aspects of our current situation and they may be a starting point for the ultimate target: defining the problem and fixing it.

    The interesting graph above shows a gigantic jump around the 2008 Global Financial Crisis which reflects the solution to the mismanagement, corruption and greed which smashed the U.S. economy. We can recall the Clintons involvement in the U.S. mortgage mess at that time.

    The Elites “fixed” their problem with Quantitative Easing, a.k.a. massive inflation, to reduce the debt they had incurred to relative insignificance in this later world.

    We have lost touch with reality and the road back is being deliberately hidden by people like Mr. Doerr.

    His interference in the quest for truth and useful knowledge is obvious but he is not alone and we have a long difficult path before us til we are free.

    KK

    160

    • #
      John in Oz

      From Doerr’s web site:

      A pioneer of Silicon Valley’s cleantech movement, Doerr has invested in zero emissions technologies since 2006.

      His ‘donation’ is not disposable wealth, it is an business investment predicated on receiving more ‘solutions’ that are to his advantage.

      90

    • #
      Ian

      You must find it quite difficult and upsetting to realise that the opinion of the majority in most countries is moving inexorably to the view that humans do cause climate change by burning fossil fuels and is seeking an approach that will enable society to generate electricity by other means. A cogent example is the sale of 21,000 EVs in 2021, up by around 3x more than the number sold in 2020.

      Many here, apparently, are unaware of the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” and although I am in this case the messenger, that does not make the message any less true. If you disagree why not present the evidence on which you base your argument?

      https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/jan/27/un-global-climate-poll-peoples-voice-is-clear-they-want-action

      117

      • #
        Russell

        All “Messengers” today are corrupt and evil. They lie and use data that is meaningless or manipulative.
        Proof: I get 20 calls per day from Amazon to tell me I have “authorised a payment”.
        The Guardian – and you by quoting them – are the same type of messenger.
        Hang up on them!

        120

        • #
          Ian

          “Proof: I get 20 calls per day from Amazon to tell me I have “authorised a payment”.”

          Yeah I get a lot too and also from other sources but they are obviously infantile and readily dismissed.

          I don’t need to hang up on the Guardian as I subscribe to it and The Australian and The Australian Financial Review as I like to get information from more than one source. Don’t you?

          010

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Yes, you are truly a standout example of the modern “academic” in that you are going with the flow and illustrating the main point being made by many here.

        Open your mouth and speak the truth means losing your job.

        Including the words “Carbonium Dioxide” in every lecture is the forerunner of SloMos Jobbykeeper.

        Stay with the flow.

        90

        • #
          Ian

          KK I retired 17 years ago so have no interest whatsoever in any “flow” or in “losing my job”.

          Sometimes I would give lectures on carbon dioxide but on the way CO2 levels are regulated in the body by the lungs and kidneys and the problems caused by disturbances of that regulation

          26

          • #
            b.nice

            You say you know a little bit about CO2.

            So you must realise that increased CO2 is absolutely necessary for continue life on the planet.

            So why do you hate it so much ?

            121

            • #
              ian

              So you must realise that increased CO2 is absolutely necessary for continue life on the planet.

              So why do you hate it so much ?

              I don’t hate CO2 at all. Why would I as it is essential for life on this planet? But why is “increased CO2 absolutely necessary for continue life on the planet.”?

              I presume you mean because of increase in populations that consume plants . But??

              Why higher atmospheric CO2 alters crops’ nutritional content is not understood . But, rising CO2 reduces the concentration of critical nutrients around the world. These kinds of nutritional deficiencies are already significant public health threats, and will only worsen as CO2 levels go up. Considering only the fertilisation effect of CO2 on crops in isolation ignores the overall effect of adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere,”

              https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/ask-the-experts-does-rising-co2-benefit-plants1/

              17

              • #
                b.nice

                “But why is “increased CO2 absolutely necessary for continue life on the planet.”?”

                Ok so you don’t know much about CO2. (As expected)

                Current CO2 levels are far below optimum plant growth levels.

                And no, it doesn’t reduce crop nutrient.

                The actual amount of nutrient increase, just less quickly than the bulk, and only if you don’t provide extra other micro-nutrients.

                Science is hard for you, isn’t it Ian.

                60

              • #
                b.nice

                “I don’t hate CO2 at all. “

                Then why are you so vehemently against allowing its continued de-sequestration?

                Why to you back the moronic anti-coal lobby !

                50

              • #
                MP

                That article is the most unscientific thing I’ve ever read.

                Scientists have also looked specifically at the effects of rising CO2 on agricultural plants and found a fertilization effect. “For a lot of crops, [more CO2] is like having extra material in the atmosphere that they can use to grow,”

                Doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels, she adds, does boost the productivity of crops like wheat by some 11.5 percent and of those such as corn by around 8.4 percent.

                A lack of nitrogen or other nutrients does not affect agricultural plants as much as wild ones, thanks to fertilizer. (How many years in the education system did it take to figure that out.)
                Here is this brilliant scientists title….Frances Moore, an assistant professor of environmental science and policy at the University of California, Davis.

                Myers and other researchers have found atmospheric CO2 levels predicted for mid-century—around 550 parts per million—could make food crops lose enough of those key nutrients to cause a protein deficiency in an estimated 150 million people and a zinc deficit in an additional 150 million to 200 million. (green houses are fed CO2 at 800-1200ppm)

                May, could, likely and if they threw the term “experts” around a couple more times.

                Farmers don’t just buy thousands of dollars worth of mixed seed and cast them upon the fields, we test the soil and plant crops to suit or adjust the mineral and N content. Crop rotation and legumes that input N are also utilised. (You know, Science!)
                Most forests are N deficient along with many other minerals and it has nothing to do with man. Most farms are on cleared forests ground and are deficient.

                Most life grows to its limiting factor, farmers can optimise most except hours of sun sunshine ands CO2 in open fields, the dirt’s there to hold the things upright. Have you heard of Hydroponics?

                Stupid paper, free of facts.

                50

              • #
                b.nice

                That article is the most unscientific thing I’ve ever read.

                Stupid paper, free of facts.

                So, naturally, Ian’s choice.

                30

              • #
                Serp

                The source, scientific american, has not been authoritative for decades; hence or otherwise I didn’t click on the link.

                Keep it up though, the advocacy of ignorance, and maybe eventually you’ll exhaust your supply of whatever enzyme drives it.

                30

          • #
            Kalm Keith

            CO2 in the human body is a balance between production via normal activity and removal of excess from bloodstream.

            Where CO2 builds up in the bloodstream it must be removed via the wonderful lungs we have.

            Bloodstream CO2 levels are monitored by the CNS which presumably signals the lungs to either work harder or slow down.

            Interestingly the CNS can not receive info when CO2 levels drop below a certain level and at this point it stops telling the lungs what to do: they cease activity. Death results.

            Too much oxygen can reduce CO2 below the critical point and life stops; many people are aware of this and at the end of life can peacefully move on with an altered breathing pattern which I’ve described previously.

            In that sense the gas known as Oxygen can be seen as the most dangerous gas on Earth.

            The term Cheyne-Stokes breathing is mentioned in this regard but it doesn’t seem to be the same process I’ve seen and understand.

            40

      • #
        Neville

        GEEEZZZ Ian who cares about their silly fantasies because I’m more interested about the REAL world data and evidence.
        I’ve linked to numerous examples using only UN data, but apparently this counts for nothing compared to their delusional fairy tales?
        Amazing thing is that one part of the UN can show us the REAL world data, but then another part of the same UN can’t understand their own UN data and instead tell us a pack of lies.

        100

      • #
        Forrest Gardener

        Ian, ease up on the condescension. And have a quick look for your marbles.

        70

        • #
          Ian

          Apologies for any condescension FG it was not intended. Perhaps you would be good enough to explain your comment.

          And as “for looking for my marbles” that is inappropriate for if I had lost my marbles I could hardly have been condescending too.

          Perhaps you should check the meaning of condescending. Hint-that last comment should help as it is deliberately condescending as indeed is this

          06

      • #
        b.nice

        Oh look, another Gruniad poll for Ian to get his opinion from.

        So funny !

        50

        • #
          Ian

          If you’re intending to be funny or smart b.nice don’t spoilt by ineptitude

          It isn’t Gruniad but Grauniad here’s the correct “mis-“spelling

          “The Grauniad is a nickname for the UK national newpaper, the Guardian, because of a now ill-founded reputation for typos. The name was given to it by the satirical magazine Private Eye. ”

          I doubt you’ve ever heard of Private Eye let alone read it but maybe look it up sometime

          15

          • #
            b.nice

            Ian,

            Your petty comments are becoming legendary.

            Gruniad. get over it. !

            50

            • #
              Ian

              “Gruniad Get over it”

              I’ll try but probably won’t succeed as whenever if think Gruniad I’ll be reminded of your ineptitude in mis-spelling the well known mis-spelling Gruaniad What a hoot!

              And BTW you’ve bungled yet again by stating:

              “Your petty comments are becoming legendary.”

              You clearly have no idea that “legendary” means “very famous”, “well known” “excellent”

              So, thanks for the compliment

              15

      • #
        b.nice

        “sale of 21,000 EVs in 2021”

        Out of new car sales of 1,049,831… So funny !

        Now see what happens if you remove subsidies for rich virtue-seekers.

        91

  • #
    David Maddison

    Here’s a test of academic honesty.

    If one of Doerr’s climate researchers (yes, he will own them) comes up with a research conclusion contrary to the climate catastrophe dogma, will they keep their job or be cancelled and fired?

    Back in the day, there was a concept of academic freedom and integrity, a researcher could produce any valid conclusion they liked as long as it could be justified.

    Now results must suit the dogma.

    The following is theoretical only, clearly these principles no longer apply.

    This is from UNIVERSITIES AUSTRALIA – UA ACADEMIC INTEGRITY – BEST PRACTICE PRINCIPLES – NOVEMBER 2017

    Universities are built on inspiring free thought and encouraging intellectual debate and exchange of ideas – academic freedom. With this freedom comes an equally compelling responsibility to uphold academic integrity – honest endeavour, ownership of work and acknowledgement of prior thoughts, ideas, data and research.

    101

    • #
      Honk R Smith

      “… will they keep their job or be cancelled and fired?”

      There’s the other possibility …
      they may hang themselves with toilet paper rope, while in solitary confinement, under suicide watch by narcoleptic guards that are unable to operate cameras.

      Birthing Person Nature doesn’t like people upsetting billionaires that are trying to help.

      81

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Interesting juxtaposition David. Academic honesty and a heavily funded university institute.

      31

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      Requires them to “compellingly uphold prior thoughts, ideas, data and research”.

      i.e. Once spoken in academic context and approved by the university scrutineers, it is true for all time.

      Compelling.

      21

    • #
      Ian

      “If one of Doerr’s climate researchers (yes, he will own them) comes up with a research conclusion contrary to the climate catastrophe dogma, will they keep their job or be cancelled and fired?”

      Truthfully I don’t know. I’d like to think that losing their job would still not be the case but as I retired from university life 17 years ago things may well be very different What changed in the 33 years I spent as an academic was not that differences weren’t “allowed’ but the increasing reluctance for research results to be freely available and shared throughout the research community. This was largely due to the fact that research money got harder to find so keeping cards close to the chest became prevalent. It was a change that did little for research as a whole but did profit the pharmaceutical industry and saved the government money.

      05

      • #
        b.nice

        Again, you are just not paying any attention.

        Quite a few eminent professors have been “dismissed” from their positions because they took a scientific view of climate studies, rather than follow the AGW mantra.

        91

    • #
      Ian

      Problem with posting

      03

  • #
    Neville

    The billionaires con tricks are easily checked and proven WRONG.
    In 1950 global population was 2.5 billion and global life exp 45.5 yrs.
    In 1970 pop was 3.7 bn and life exp 56.5 years.

    In 1990 pop was 5.3 bn and life exp 64 years.

    In 2010 pop was 6.9 bn and life exp 69.7 years.

    In 2022 pop is 7.9 bn and life exp 73 years.

    So global pop has increased by 5.4 billion since 1950 and life exp has increased by 27.5 years in the last 72 years.
    AGAIN where’s their terrible climate change CRISIS and EXISTENTIAL THREAT over the last 72 years? Please WAKE UP.
    But I admit I’m checking the real world data here and not their silly FANTASY world.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/WLD/world/life-expectancy

    130

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Right and wrong are such antiquated concepts. Now there is only profit and power or no profit and power.

      That will change and the notion of objective truth will one day prevail. I just doubt any of those in this discussion will live that long.

      71

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN our poorest continent Africa had a life exp in 1950 of just 40 years and population of just 227 million.
    By 1970 life exp had increased to 46 yrs and pop increased to 363 mil.
    But today life exp has increased to 63.8 years and population has increased to 1400 + million people. Look up the UN data for yourselves.
    But again this is real world data and not from their silly fairy tales.

    https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AFR/africa/life-expectancy

    70

    • #
      el+gordo

      There are many countries in Africa and climate change is having an impact.

      “The number of hungry people due to drought could spiral from the currently estimated 14 million to 20 million through 2022,” the UN’s World Food Programme (WFP) said last month.’ (Straits Times)

      15

      • #
        Neville

        EG I’ve tried to explain this before but I’ll try again.
        The UN data on African pop since 1950 and increasing life exp is REAL world data and evidence.
        BUT Africa has always suffered from droughts and famines when their previous populations were tiny compared to post 1970.
        But today they’ve increased their population ( since 1970) by OVER 1 billion people and life exp from 46 to 63.8 years.
        Plus they’ve had to fight the HIV Aids disaster, deaths from malaria and also internal wars brought on by tribal and clan conflicts.
        So I still can’t see anything about the climate that is unusual or unprecedented at all. In fact the reverse is true for Africa and the entire world since 1810 or 1950 or 1970 or 1990. Just look up the data for wealth and health today and even African urban living is increasing as well.

        70

      • #
        Forrest Gardener

        Ok Gordo. You seem intelligent and amenable to reason.

        When you say climate change in Africa, can you tell us what the climate was and what it is now?

        Pick any place and time span which best illustrates your case.

        61

    • #
      el+gordo

      Three failed rainy seasons in Somalia, Ethiopia and Kenya has produced the worst drought in decades.

      14

      • #
        Neville

        Eg See my reply to you and droughts and famines for Africa were very common in past history but not so much today. But I’m sure it will repeat in future years and decades. But if you think co2 plays a part today and in future droughts etc then you should be able to explain the past 72 for Africa and the past incredible 200 + years for all Humans since the Industrial REV?
        AGAIN just look up the REAL world data.

        30

      • #
        Forrest Gardener

        Ok Gordo. I’m guessing that you claim three failed rainy seasons constitutes a change in climate.

        How often did the rainy seasons fail before the climate changed?

        41

        • #
          el+gordo

          Droughts on the Horn of Africa usually happen during La Nina years, which is related to global cooling.

          20

          • #
            Forrest Gardener

            That is not what I asked Gordo.

            For your convenience, what I asked was how often did the rainy seasons fail before the climate changed?

            31

            • #
              el+gordo

              Monsoon failure has happened regularly throughout millennia, whenever back to back La Nina turns up.

              You could say its not climate change because it has always happened, but they say La Nina has been exacerbated by global warming. This is pure speculation on their part.

              30

              • #
                Forrest Gardener

                I’m not asserting anything Gordo other than he who asserts (which you did) must prove (which you have not even attempted to do).

                20

            • #
              el+gordo

              Its a cyclic phenomenon, from 1986-1997 it was wet and the period 1998-2008 was drier, then wetter 2009-2018 and dry 2019 to the present. Note its roughly a ten year cycle, what does that tell us?

              So I argue it has nothing to do with CO2 and is more likely associated with solar forcing.

              20

  • #
    Neville

    AGAIN Dr Rosling proves in under 5 minutes that since Britain started the Ind REV the huge increase of Human population has improved their HEALTH and WEALTH in very quick time. Thanks to the use of FOSSIL FUELS.
    See his BBC video using UN data 1810 to 2010. Just 5 minutes of your time and then it just remains for you to THINK.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jbkSRLYSojo

    80

    • #
      Neville

      AGAIN I should state that the UN data above only takes a few minutes to find online, but apparently the clueless Universities require endless billions of $ over many years to then tell us a pack of lies about the Climate CRISIS + the EXISTENTIAL threat to our Human race.
      Why have we lost the ability to understand very simple DATA and EVIDENCE? And why has this stupid fantasy infected ( almost) every country in the world?

      60

    • #
      b.nice

      “it just remains for you to THINK.”

      An activity that has been drilled out of much of society but the far-left borg. !

      20

  • #

    Apart from a colossal waste of money in that there is more than enough data and studies out there to show that the Sun is the driver, this is incredibly dangerous.

    This is more of the Leftist idea that science is something where you determine what you want, and out comes study after study, unsurprisingly, affirming your original hypothesis. This is dangerous in that science is not a plaything of the Left to be used to validate their stupid theories, science is the objective and professional study where we propose a hypothesis and rigourously assess all possible evidence to confirm if its correct or not. If you cannot establish that the hypothesis is correct by this, then you are WRONG.

    The Left cannot stand to ever be shown to be wrong, and they are wrong nearly all the time. So they lie and create whole institutions, like this, to perpetuate the lies. But no amount of lying will ever become the Truth. Creating whole systems to lie is utterly wrong and can only destroy our world.

    I would also cynically note that this guy and his wife will no doubt be seeking a pay back and improved ability to peddle their renewables schemes from their “investment” here providing “the science” to be used to justify their business model.

    90

  • #
    Ross

    So, technically there really shouldn’t be any further research into Climate change. We’ve been told there’s a “consensus” into the cause of climate change and its caused by only one factor – human emissions of CO2. So that’s it then. Solution is, stop all man made production of CO2. It appears that the world is already on the pathway towards this goal. Well, at least the politicians, bureaucrats, UN and it would seem all the billionaires are. So, please advise all those Climate Scientists, researchers, modellers there is no more funding required for all their work. Bring them in one by one and advise their position is now redundant. Lets start with the CSIRO. Solutions I hear you say? Well, apparently renewable energy provided by the sun, wind and green hydrogen is our energy provision solution. The technology for all those 3 solutions is already topped out, so no more work in even needed for them. So, we don’t need any more subsidies. Phew, I can now relax, Climate Change is now fixed. We are about to reach Climate Change Zero. I’ll just turn the heater up- getting a bit cold outside.

    70

    • #
      David Maddison

      We’ve been told there’s a “consensus” into the cause of climate change and its caused by only one factor – human emissions of CO2. 

      Yes, if there’s “97% consenus” (which was a fraudulent “research” finding for those who don’t know but it is standard dogma of the Left) what is there left to research?

      20

    • #
      Dave in the States

      “So, technically there really shouldn’t be any further research into Climate change. We’ve been told there’s a “consensus” into the cause of climate change and its caused by only one factor – human emissions of CO2. So that’s it then. Solution is, stop all man made production of CO2”

      There remains that one metric over which we have no control: The actual atmospheric co2 measurement. No co2 mitigation has ever affected it. None ever will.

      60

  • #
  • #
    Ross

    So, on Twitter (yes, I know, its a sewer) I follow our esteemed Minister for Energy and Carbon Emissions. The Honourable Angus Taylor of the LNP. Seems a decent sort of chap. He’s young, comes from a regional electorate, handsome, speaks well. Good chance he might be a future Australian PM. He’s like nothing better than to waste our taxpayers money. In the time that I have been following him on Twitter he has gifted money to a Pumped hydro project in South Australia – the driest state in the driest continent on earth. He loves Green Hydrogen and has given hundreds of millions of $ towards all sorts of research and projects for that fuel. This morning I read his tweet. Now he is gallivanting around the country giving money to private companies to change them from coal generated electricity to gas generated electricity. I kid you not. This company (Manildra ) already has a very reliable electricity supply from coal. So he is going to give them taxpayers money to change to gas. Same electrons, just didn’t fossil fuel source. So, at the very least he’s balanced. He can now get criticism from both the climate realists and the climate extremists. If this is the best politician we have got in this country we are seriously cooked.

    130

  • #
    Ronin

    It’s his money, let him waste it as he sees fit, how many private jets does he own.

    30

    • #
      Forrest Gardener

      Yeah, that’s one way of looking at it and in general I’d agree.

      But the waste isn’t pure and it isn’t harmless.

      30

  • #
    Neville

    Here’s an interesting graph for world population by 2100 and steep deceasing trend shown as well since the mid 1960s until 2100.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Projections_of_population_growth#/media/File:World_population_growth,_1700-2100,_2019_revision.png

    This is from Our World in Data and Human average life expectancy by 2100 is projected to be about 81+ years for the 10.9 billion Humans in the world. Japan and Australian etc life exp will be over 90 years in 2100. I hope this link works for some countries and for world life exp by 2100.
    These data for life expectancy and population are all UN projections up to 2100.

    https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/life-expectancy-at-birth-including-the-un-projections?country=OWID_WRL~BRA~IND~SWE~JPN~AUS

    40

  • #
    David Maddison

    how many private jets does he own.

    At least one. Most climate catastrophists do.

    http://bookmarker.dellsystem.me/note/4149

    John Doerr’s private jet
    —I had helped get John credit for passing AB 32, the California carbon tax law, by bringing entrepreneurs to Sacramento to talk job creation with legislators. (The fact that John had flown one of his private jets to Sacramento instead of driving 116 miles horrified the entrepreneurs, who had carpooled in a modified Prius that got a hundred miles to the gallon. To avoid that embarrassment, when John later flew to D.C. to testify in the Senate about climate policy, he took his private jet to St. Louis, hopped a short commercial flight to D.C., then had his jet fly out to meet him in D.C. to bring him back to California.)

    40

    • #
      David Maddison

      Actually, he owns at least two private jets because the article says “one of his private jets”.

      You can never have too many private jets if you’re a climate catastrophist.

      Michael Bloomberg has SIX aircraft. (Four jets and two props.)

      From Wiki:

      He owns six airplanes: three Dassault Falcon 900s, a Beechcraft B300, a Pilatus PC-24, and a Cessna 182 Skylane.

      60

      • #

        A very unreliable source. A little digging shows that he co-owns in a syndicate and there is no evidence that he uses it for extravagant jaunts.

        Look up “Jjsa Aviation LLC”

        05

        • #
          b.nice

          Oh Nos.. He has links to fossil fuel usage !!

          Left must ostrichise him straight away.

          “There is no evidence that he uses it for extravagant jaunts.”

          So he co-owns the syndicate, but doesn’t fly anywhere.. Ok, whatever passes through your little mind ! 😉

          Flew to COP26, the ultimate climate soiree, didn’t he. !

          40

        • #
          Forrest Gardener

          Be a better propagandist GI. You just threw that in attempting to muddy the waters, didn’t you.

          There is no evidence he uses the planes for anything other than extravagant jaunts.

          70

          • #
            b.nice

            Gee is doing the very best that he can.

            Its just that it is a very pathetic “best”.

            40

            • #
              Ian

              “Gee is doing the very best that he can.

              Its just that it is a very pathetic “best”.”

              Gee can take consolation in that however pathetic his best is it will always but always, be infinitely better than yours

              BTW there’s an apostrophe in It’s just that

              05

            • #
              MP

              She, Her, it, that, but not a He. I told you this yesterday!

              You are slipping back to your old ways, you had been doing so well.

              10

              • #
                b.nice

                Are you saying it identifies as a “she” ?

                10

              • #
                MP

                Yes, from the horses mouth. (or fingers) (or hoof)

                10

              • #
                b.nice

                “Yes, from the horses mouth. “

                Just because he/she says so.. doesn’t mean it is true.

                The fakery is strong with that one.

                10

              • #
                MP

                I believe she was honest, you would of had to of been in the conversation to understand.
                I used to enjoy her sarcasm, until see got her you know what’s, been slowly degrading since, sad.

                10

  • #
  • #
    Forrest Gardener

    It is at times like this that I think of houses of cards. I just try to focus on not being under or in the cards when they collapse. And then wonder what I can do as an individual to give the cards a nudge.

    61

  • #
    Steve of Cornubia

    The climate change hoax is advancing by the same means as Leftism, as described by Jordan Peterson. In his explanation, Leftism advances slowly and deliberately, encrouching on every aspect of our lives, until it is called out and the alarm raised, whereupon they simply halt, refuse to backtrack, and wait till their opponents lose interest or think the Left has been stopped. Then, when the rest of us return to our normal lives, they recommence creeping forward before halting again, then moving forward.

    Before the rest of us know it, they have hijacked pretty much every institution and law upon which a fair and effective society is built. That’s when, having reached ‘critical mass’ the final takeover will commence.

    This is how AGW works, advancing slowly but inexorably, only halting temporarily when challenges against it gain traction, but advancing again when we lose interest.

    100

  • #
    OldOzzie

    Texas Faces “Record High” Temps As Grid Operator Warns Of Above-Average Power Usage

    The threat of unseasonably warm weather has already concerned Texas’s power-grid manager, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas, otherwise known as ERCOT. They said “larger-than-normal” power consumption would be observed due to a surge in cooling demand.

    Commodity research firm Criterion Research said, “ERCOT’s power load is expected to climb far above normal for this time of year, with Monday’s demand forecast ramping to nearly 55 GW as heat moves in across Texas.”

    According to Bloomberg data, Texas day ahead on-peak average power price for Friday has already hit $195.57 a megawatt-hour, the highest since June.

    In recent days, the prospects of higher cooling demand in Texas have sent natural gas futures soaring on supply concerns. June contracts jumped above $8/MMBtu on Wednesday and, as of Thursday morning, are around $8.50//MMBtu, a level not seen since late 2008.

    10

  • #
    David Maddison

    What conservatives don’t understand about the Left is that they are relentless. They absolutely will not stop, ever, until they have implemented complete totalitarian control, by whatever means it takes.

    Rudi Dutschke invented the slow way to do it in 1967 with his “long march through the institutions”.

    30

  • #
    neil

    When did oligarch start meaning billionaire?

    Oligarchy: A government in which power is held by a select few individuals or a small class of powerful people.

    Having too much money doesn’t make you an oligarch, you have to be part of the ruling structure.

    10

    • #

      When did oligarch start meaning billionaire?

      It didn’t. It has been misused here. Rich people have been donating to Universities in the US for over 100 years. They weren’t oligarchs then or now.

      12

    • #
      Ross

      Well, there was this thing called the Ukraine war. Not sure you noticed it, big in the news of late. Anyway, any Russian person with a wealth greater than a few mill $ were called Russian oligarchs by the media. Those shadowy figures that all apparently had Putin’s ear. They owned soccer clubs and all had big yachts. It was important we confiscate all their assets to teach Vlad a lesson. So, now the term can be used more generally to describe any wealthy person. Andrew Forrest -he’s an Australian oligarch. Worth a fortune and apparently is on a first name basis with the higher ups in our government. Must be, he’s getting all those green hydrogen subsidies.

      52

  • #
    Neville

    According to Lomborg the IPCC’s estimate of the cost of Climate change will mean that people in 2070 will only be 2.56 times richer than they are today.
    IOW without the cost of Climate change they would’ve been 3.63 times richer, so what’s the problem?
    Seems like a very good deal to me and we should start building many new Coal fired plants ASAP. It obviously means ZERO difference anyway for our climate, just ask Dr Finkel our chief Scientist.

    https://news.sky.com/story/bjorn-lomborg-climate-alarm-is-a-bigger-threat-than-climate-change-it-leads-to-anxious-lives-and-bad-policies-12067383

    41

  • #
    b.nice

    OT, Vail Mountain Completes Longest Season on Record with Snow to Spare

    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2022/05/05/vail-mountain-completes-longest-season-on-record-with-snow-to-spare/

    I though kids weren’t going to know what snow was. 😉

    41

  • #
    Rafe+Champion

    There is a major study of strategic philanthropy on the part of charitable trusts founded by the great industrialists of times past whose legacies are squandered by their woke grandchildren.
    The article is paywalled but you can get the picture from the abstract that is accessble.

    50

    • #

      It is not paywalled for me at a public university but for reference try Sci-hub to get paywalled stuff which I use for the stuff that is still paywalled.

      At the moment it is located here: sci-hub.se (and maybe elsewhere – it moves about and has multiple domains when it gets shut down for breaching some code or other).

      In the search box put the doi – in this case it is 10.1002/wcc.524

      alternatively the direct link https://sci-hub.se/10.1002/wcc.524 which is simple to derive without using the search box

      03

      • #

        And this is off topic but she is almost Russian (Kazakh) and oligarchs are popular in Russia. The story of the founder of scihub Alexandra_Elbakyan is worth a read. She is a self-avowed anti-liberal communist who aligns herself with Putin.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandra_Elbakyan

        Elbakyan has been described as “Science’s Pirate Queen”.[8] In 2016, Nature included her in their top ten people that mattered in science list.[9] Since 2011, she has been living in Russia.

        02

      • #
        Serp

        Excellent material; thanks Gee Aye. I note that within its conclusion the term “climate-change philanthropy” is deployed without embarrassment as if it were not nearly an oxymoron.

        10

    • #
      MP

      Related to Peter?

      10

  • #
    John Connor II

    And they say skeptics are funded by fossil fuels. If the science is so strong why are they so incredibly afraid of any tiny funding to check it?

    It also begs the question of why so many millionaires are intent on funding climate change research when the green agenda is intent on destroying the capitalist system, the very basis of the millionaires wealth.
    A self destructive act. .
    I guess the lies and brainwashing by the climate crisis squad has worked.
    Perhaps a few major “this can’t be explained by AGW” events will wake them up.
    Won’t be long.

    60

  • #
    Ronin

    Watched Planet of the Humans this arvo, can still view it on yout*be.
    We’ve been conned , but we know that already, the biggest problem isn’t CO2, it’s us, there’s too many of us now and still growing.

    32

  • #
    b.nice

    Oh dear, SA is yet again using diesel for some of their electricity.

    Gas 945MW, Liquid Fuel 185MW, Interconnects 326MW, Wind 258MW

    Queensland 94% Coal and gas !

    NSW 82% coal and gas with some hydro and wind.

    30

  • #
    PeterS

    The US administration and Biden are now warning those who don’t take climate change seriously and will be treated as an existential threat. Proxy wars everywhere.
    Tucker: Violence is already beginning

    20