Guest “Du kan ikke fikse dumt“ by David Middleton
I couldn’t make this sort of schist up if I was trying…
Very little money is actually spent on climate research
Researchers have looked at where USD 1.3 trillion in research funding is spent across the globe. Less than 5 per cent of this money has gone to climate research. Studies that examine how society can cope with the climate of the future are given a very small share of this pot.Ulla Gjeset Schjølberg
JOURNALISTNancy Bazilchuk
ENGLISH VERSIONPUBLISHED Friday 07. February 2020
In a recent study, researchers at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the University of Sussex reviewed how much of US 1.3 trillion (NOK 11.4 trillion) in research funding is dedicated to climate research.
[…]
Climate change research received just under 4.6 per cent of the research funding allocated between 1990 and 2018, researchers found.
And while research in the natural sciences and technology received about USD 40 billion, social science and humanities research received just USD 4.6 billion during the same period.
An analysis of 1500 grants for social science research aimed at curbing climate change showed that this type of research is being awarded USD 393 million.
[…]
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
Social science should play an important role
[…]
Reference:
Øverland, I. and Sovacool, B.K: «The misallocation of climate research funding». Energy Research & Social Science (2020)
sciencenorway
This bears repeating…
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
Clearly, in the minds of fake scientists (social sciences), we shouldn’t be spending money on natural sciences, trying to understand how climate change works… We should be giving that money to people like John Cook and Stephan Lewandowsky to fund Enviromarxist propaganda…
The researchers write in their study that social science research plays an important role in understanding how climate change can be slowed.
“One of the most urgent unsolved puzzles is how to get people to act on what they know, that is to say, how to alter society to curb climate change,” they write.
sciencenorway
Obviously, it’s a waste of research money to determine if this is anomalous…
Relative to this…
Or this…
The money would be better spent on Enviromarxist propaganda, like this…
The “funny thing” is that it didn’t cost me a dime to refute everything they wrote… Oh wait, I think I did spend $10 “renting” a 1963 JGR paper.
“The misallocation of climate research funding”
The full text of the paper (Øverland & Sovacool, 2020) is available. The journal title tells you all you need to know:
Energy Research & Social Science
Editor-in-Chief: Benjamin Sovacool
Peer reviewed international journal that examines the relationship between energy systems and society
Energy Research & Social Science (ERSS) is a peer-reviewed international journal that publishes original research and review articles examining the relationship between energy systems and society. ERSS covers a range of topics revolving around the intersection of energy technologies, fuels, and resources on one side; and social processes and influences – including communities of energy users, people affected by energy production, social institutions, customs, traditions, behaviors, and policies – on the other. Put another way, ERSS investigates the social system surrounding energy technology and hardware. ERSS is of relevance for energy practitioners, researchers interested in the social aspects of energy production or use, and policymakers.
[…]
Energy Research & Social Science
Basically: Energy and Society
When I was in college, my recollection is that the “science” textbooks for non-science majors had similar titles:
| Subject | Science Majors | Non-Science Majors |
| Physics | College Physics | Physics and Society |
| Chemistry | General Chemistry | Chemistry and Society |
| Biology | Principles of Zoology | Animals and Society |
| Geology | Earth | Too Difficult for Society |
Only one of the above titles is an actual textbook. Earth by Press & Siever was my freshman physical geology textbook. It’s sitting on my desk in my office. However, the science major textbooks are my closest recollections of my other freshman textbooks. The non-science major textbooks are my vague recollections, except the geology one… That’s a wise @$$ remark.
The main gist of is that people must be brainwashed…
Limiting global warming to 1.5°C will require reaching 80% zero-emission energy by 2030 and 100% by 2050 [10].
Øverland & Sovacool, 2020
Without decarbonizing much of anything, the observations at airports (HadCRUT4) are tracking the high-end of RCP2.6 and mid-range of RCP4.5. Both of these are strong mitigation scenarios. If we look at the observations in the atmosphere (UAH v6.0), we’re barely tracking above 1.5 °C
There’s nothing special about limiting warming to 1.5 °C relative to the late Little Ice Age. Being a little warmer than the coldest climate of the Holocene Epoch is a very good thing.
RCP2.6 and RCP4.5 are innocuous scenarios.
Obviously, to the math- and science-challenged world of social science, that’s not good enough.
Despite progress in some areas, ongoing changes are too shallow and too slow to reach such targets. Solar, wind, geothermal, and modern bioenergy combined still make up only 6.7% of the world’s total final energy consumption [13]. Meanwhile, in the decade from 2007 to 2017, oil, gas, and coal production grew by 13%, 25% and 8%, respectively and, consequently, CO2 emissions grew by almost 11% [14]. During the same period, three times more money was spent on oil, gas, and coal facilities than on all forms of renewable energy infrastructure, including hydropower and biofuels [15]. Deforestation and population growth also continue at a high pace [16].
Human habits are difficult to change; doing so requires altering attitudes, norms, incentives, ethics, and politics at the personal, community, and national levels [17]. Therefore, some of the key climate-change puzzles are in the realm of the social sciences broadly defined: anthropology, economics, education, international relations, human geography, development studies, legal studies, media studies, political science, psychology, and sociology [18]. Yet, as we find here, these are precisely the fields that receive least funding for climate research.
Øverland & Sovacool, 2020
Physics is a b!tch… ain’t it?
From 2007-2017 “three times more money was spent on oil, gas, and coal facilities than on all forms of renewable energy infrastructure”… and?
In 2017 fossil fuels delivered nearly eight times as much energy as “all forms of renewable energy infrastructure, including hydropower and biofuels” combined.
Spend $3x to get 8x(Energy) = No brainer.
So, clearly we need an army of fake scientists to say…
And convince us that we should all gladly freeze in the dark to save the planet. Who’s up for some George Carlin?
WARNING: Lot’s of profanity! Don’t watch if you have sensitive ears.
References
Cook, J., Supran, G., Lewandowsky, S., Oreskes, N., & Maibach, E., (2019). “America Misled: How the fossil fuel industry deliberately misled Americans about climate change”. Fairfax, VA: George Mason University Center for Climate Change Communication. Available at https://www.climatechangecommunication.org/america-misled/
Kobashi, T., Menviel, L., Jeltsch-Thömmes, A. et al. “Volcanic influence on centennial to millennial Holocene Greenland temperature change”. Scientific Reports 7, 1441 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-01451-7
McKay, N., Kaufman, D. “An extended Arctic proxy temperature database for the past 2,000 years”. Scientific Data 1. 140026 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1038/sdata.2014.26
Øverland, I. and Sovacool, B.K: “The misallocation of climate research funding”. Energy Research & Social Science (2020)
If they are not trying to find out what’s happening why do they need money ?
To tell us what is happening and NOT to try to determine any heretical truths, obviously.
They win. It’s settled science. Now take all the money that would be spend on Climate Research and spend it on infrastructure improvements to prevent climate change. Stronger seawalls, better bridges, reclaimed beaches, etc. The money is better spent on real concrete improvements than already settled science. So the next time some mann tells you its settled science, just agree and tell them there is no need for further research. Tell your congressman to move those funds to infrastructure improvements.
You might want to consider your choice of labels. “Infrastructure improvements” may be the best response to a changing climate, assuming the climate is changing enough to bother, but they in no way “prevent climate change”.
It’s not about preventing climate change. It’s just better to build seawalls than models. It’s better to build stronger buildings than pay yet another Doomer to tell us we will all die in 10 years.
But, you said
“spend it on infrastructure improvements to prevent climate change. ”
which could only actually mean, as written, something that will indeed prevent the climate from changing.
You are correct. It should have read to prevent the effects of climate change.
Actually, no more money should be spent on global warming research. According to the scientists, “the science is settled.”
Thanks again, David! Your posts are entertaining and informative with unusually learned and humorous comments. Keep poking the Green Blob in the eyes with facts and data. I would pull the meters out of alarmist’s electrical panels and tell they to produce their own! But then I think those in favor of illegal immigration should have their locked gates and front doors removed and a sign saying “Immigrant Housing” planted in their front yard
“social science and humanities research received just USD 4.6 billion during the same period.”
“just”???!!! Who is this idiot kidding.
Sounds like $4.6 billion too much to me.
From the Press Release—“Social science should play an important role”
Speaking of social science, this is from the end of an abstract in this paper–R. B. Ditton, A. J. Fedler, and R. T. Christian. 1992. The Evolution of Recreational Fisheries Management in Texas. Ocean & Coastal Management. 17:169-181.
“Also, in an effort to understand the extent to which the management philosophy of optimum sustained yield has been institutionalized in Texas, emphasis is given to the role of social-science research during this evolution. Whereas it played a minor role in major fishery allocation decisions made in 1981, 10 years later there are social-science objectives in the management agency’s strategic plan and support for agency/academic research effort.”
Pre-1981 management was less political. See Robert Fritchey–2017. Missing Redfish–The Blackened History of a Gulf Coast Icon. New Moon Press
“A billion here, a billion there. Pretty soon you are talking about real money.” Everett Dirksen
I thought he used a million. But then, that was back when a billion was still a lot of money.
P.S. loved the section on textbooks for the pseudo-, oops, I mean social sciences! Especially the the one of Earth Sciences. Always better to be a smart ass than a dumb one!
AM
David went and spoiled all the fun by giving the answer to the joke for those too dumb to figure it out on their own. Incidentally, during the time you were at Foothill College, I used Earth by Press and Siever. The other professors used a text written by one of their colleagues at De Anza College. That was the text you probably used.
The section on textbooks actually had correct titles in all but the geology for non-science majors. Our intro to physics for science majors is indeed called “College Physics” (mine from the 80s was just called “Physics” and is on the shelf beside me), likewise one of the Chemistry texts used is called “General Chemistry” (mine from the 80s is on the shelf beside me) though most of the professors have opted for a newer hybrid delivery title that isn’t quite that. I think the biology text we are using is called “Biology”. Unfortunately we don’t have a geologist or geophysicist on staff right now, so the geology courses are in the catalog, but never taught so no text book. Of course our focus is on medical related fields, so we sort of dropped the earth studies to go where the money was.
“It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,…”
The reason they are continuing to work so hard at the physical research is they are looking for some definitive proof to support the vain imaginings that have dominated public discourse for 30 years. They are sure they will find the clear proof, somehow, sometime.
Having found no meaningful, detectable temperature change for nigh unto 19 years from 1997, they have taken to destroying the careers of those who declaim their alarmist narrative. Why? Because that’s what people do when they are losing a debate.
They have opted for decibels, not debate, simulated not stimulated analysis. These are the hallmarks of those who claim belief in AG climate change, but they will believe more firmly when there is some solid proof of it.
The worst outcome would be yes, there is a slight effect by CO2, but it is inconsequential and worrying about it is a waste of time. Other things should have priority like bringing clean water to everyone, health care that works, education that teaches thinking and analysis, job skills that create a better environment and world.
That’s a good one:
They have opted for decibels, not debate, simulated not stimulated analysis.
These are the hallmarks of those who claim belief in AG climate change, but they will believe more firmly when there is some solid proof of it.
Let’s ease them up –
they will believe more firmly when there is some solid proof of it –> they will believe more firmly with stopping all dissent.
Failing reply they’d take as solid proof of victory, so the kann stumble further unheeded.
Too much climate research money being spent on science… AEUHHH???
yes that a good point, money is being spent on science and climate research (which may not be science) wants more preferably taken from legitimate science.
+100. “Social Science” is not science. It is not even science fiction.
Well, at least we now know that about 65 billion can be cut from research grants without affecting science at all. Wait…wha???
These numbers make no sense whatsoever:
“reviewed how much of US 1.3 trillion in research funding…Climate change research received just under 4.6 per cent of the research funding allocated between 1990 and 2018, researchers found…And while research in the natural sciences and technology received about USD 40 billion, social science and humanities research received just USD 4.6 billion during the same period.”
So out of 1,300 billion dollars, they account for “4.6% of 1,300 billion = ” 59.8 billion” plus 40 billion + 4.6 billion = 104.4 billion total. See? Either they cannot perform math, or write a coherent sentence, or both.
Trying to decipher this, what they likely meant was that “sciences and technology” received 40 billion per year for 29 years, while “social science and humanities” received 4.6 billion per year for 29 years, which comes close to their original 1.3 trillion. Which is likely a made up number since they apparently cannot do math or write sentences.
In any case, we can now guess that we wasted 29 x 4.6 = 133.4 billion dollars over the last 29 years. And I still have NO IDEA how much was wasted on Climate Change propaganda because the sentence is so obscure.
They need to brush up on some real research: Why Most Published Research Findings Are False https://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article/file?type=printable&id=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
There was a course, offered at Cornell, titled “Physics for Poets,” back in the Dark Ages when I attended a slightly more rigorous school. It used a text of the same name. NYU most recently offered this course in 2019.
David, David, David, it’s a LGBTQIA world now, and you’re just going to take time out from fracking up the world to adjust. Here are some hints at how to spend the trillion dollars: Climate Hot Flashes and the T Transition, or Is There Enough Cold Water Left In The Oceans to Cool My B Partner?, or What Does it Mean When They Say “The South Pole is Hot”? Your friend Ron White is definitely NOT the person to have help you with these options. Just saying.
It’s a pro-choice, selective, opportunistic, politically congruent world. The transgender spectrum is just one of its negotiable characteristics. Trans: state or transition. Just like climate, sometimes weather, sometimes fudged, sometimes more stable than others.
You are correct Ron .
Are you aware that it has been discovered that the deep south has high support for LGBT ?
Liberty , Guns , Bbq , …. and TRUMP !
😉
This is so priceless that I have to repeat it … again:
How about this:
It’s as if they don’t quite believe in Big Foot, so they keep trying to find out whether he really exists, rather than trying to work out how to capture him, …
As I hinted, … priceless wisdom there.
By “climate change”, of course, we can assume that the researcher means “human caused climate change”, rather than the general, CORRECT sense of the phrase.
Even more, we must assume that the researcher means, “CO2 human caused climate change”.
Funny how the correct general sense of the phrase has been hijacked like this and thrown out there as if everybody accepts the hijacking — I don’t.
Robert, the only fair assumption we should make is that the fool who said it probably doesn’t understand his own assumptions.
(I might conjecture that he wears Velcro slippers)
… or rides a bike in flip flops.
It’s as if they don’t quite believe in Big Foot, so they keep trying to find out whether he really exists, rather than …
… trying to convince everyone that we need to come together, submit to control and specific protocol, and re-allocate & pool our societal resources to allay the eminent, nasty, smelly threat known and accepted as bigfoot.
(they don’t really really don’t want to capture him/her; if they did that it would be obvious that s/he is not a threat … just sometimes smelly and in some circumstances a bit uncomfortable to be around)
How strange . I was thinking the other day that the editors of science journals, fed up with receiving yet another paper on the dire effects of RCP 8.5 on the lesser spotted wood louse, might suggest to the academics that they explore a different, but surely lucrative, initiative. Namely researching the effects of climate change mitigation, eg AOC’s GND on the human and natural environment. But clearly I have been forestalled by the clever chaps at NUPI and Sussex University.
Of course such effects have been explored here for years, but, as Nick gleefully pointed out a short while ago, comments on a blog site have no standing in the academic or political world – especially as most of the effects seem to be inimical to both civilised human society and what is left of our natural environment.
Very little money is spent on critical science. Much of the good work is voluntary. Most of the money is spent on the sort of ‘science’ that is intended to generate Global Warming propaganda.
“You can’t fix stupid”–
How stupid do you have to be to believe that 100% of humans share any belief?
How stupid do you have to be to believe that 97% of humans share any belief?
It is puzzling why anyone living north or south of 50 degrees of latitude would want to “slutt med det”.
Here’s a thought….
* The co2 hypothesis is a failure.
* Everything claimed to be co2 warming so far is nothing but natural noise.
* Modern measuring is too sensitive/inaccurate.
* Throw all the instruments away and just look out the window.
* Get on with solving REAL problems.
“Very little money is spent on critical science. Much of the good work is voluntary. Most of the money is spent on the sort of ‘science’ that is intended to generate Global Warming propaganda.”
Yes… well they fire and sue any disagreeable Ph.D. do they not? (I refer to any whose work might DISAGREE). At that point, ‘voluntary’ is not exactly an apt description of what follows. ‘Unemployed’ is a more accurate description.
It truly is shameful and frightening.
I don’t know. I think I could do a lot with 4.6% of 1.3 trillion dollars.
I guess after a while it just wouldn’t be enough; OK I get that.
As I recall, there was a geology course called “Rocks for Jocks” or something like that.
You’ve been busy, David. Two excellent, educational, and entertaining posts published here at WUWT in one day.
BRAVO!!!
Regards,
Bob
The frac’ing ban post took a little time and effort… This one was as easy as not eating Norwegian food.
pickled herring and salted kippers are easy to avoid.
Assuming they are right, only 5% of effort is required in the hard sciences.
That means that only 5% of the original scare came from the hard sciences
the rest came from the humanities..a well known cess-pit of log-jammed ideology
It seems that research on turbine blade optimization, fusion power, and next generation nuclear plant design would fall into the “bad” category.
Research that reduces the amount of materials required for an end product, likewise.
Sociopolitical science: the art and practice of manipulation and leverage.
Sociopathological science ?
Another look at The End Of The World. It’s really heartening to see temperature and CO2 in such lockstep.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/149157242@N05/49522969057/in/dateposted-public/
“It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.”
Cooling… warming… change. Undeniable. Unfalsifiable.
Conflation of logical domains is a feature. In Stork They Trust.
97% of housewives can’t tell Stork from butter.
David,
Geology text for Non-science Majors:
European version:
Prehistoric rock art in Scandinavia: Agency and Environmental Change (Swedish Rock Art Research Series)
https://www.amazon.com/Prehistoric-rock-art-Scandinavia-Environmental/dp/1785701193
or US version:
Rock Art: The Meanings and Myths Behind Ancient Ruins in the Southwest and Beyond
https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Art-Meanings-Ancient-Southwest/dp/1493017071
or Australia:
Rock Art of the Dreamtime: Images of Ancient Australia
https://www.amazon.com/Rock-Art-Dreamtime-Ancient-Australia/dp/0207189080
They want more free government money to spend.
How much of other people’s (taxpayer’s) money is your fair share?
If you want a well focused propaganda campaign, you can’t waste resources doing actual science and gathering facts.
[Social Science Research?? What the heck is that? It must involve the persuasion of the masses towards enlightened goals…AKA Propaganda]
Who volunteered my tax money to be spent on this indefensible crap? $Trillions sounds like real money.
“Human habits are difficult to change; doing so requires altering attitudes, norms, incentives, ethics, and politics at the personal, community, and national levels [17]. “So what is called for then is a Mao-like Cultural Revolution, led by brainwashed kids, worshipping Pop Science, fearing the apocalypse prophesized by the Truth-bound scientific priesthood, and secretly dreaming utopia. Can we just call warmism pop-science? Even skeptics seem to find it necessary to make a few remarks in obeisance to science. We need to do a general deconstruction of the science-concept. Big Pharma is also science, after all.
It is time to defund the humanities.
Who, besides the grant recipients, benefits from those old worn out pseudo-sciences? “Humanity” does not lend itself to rigorous scientific inquiry…there is almost nothing empirical to study that hasn’t already been beaten to death 50 years ago.
If the output says “global warming” or “climate change” then every penny was too much.
NONE of the science the IPCC approves survives the test of the ‘law of thermodynamics’ and convection.
I’d like to suggest cutting funding to scientists who won’t defend/debate their work in public:
We were told some time ago that climate change was settled science. So why is it still being funded?
I would reduce the level of funding by 90% and use the money saved to research into more interesting and relevant areas of science.
I love the ‘human caused climate change, which had long been predicted’ bit- Predicted by whom other than a few eco nutters who are always predicting something terrible?
Let’s just kill everybody. That will settle all the argument.
What’s up here –
“Very little money is actually spent on climate research”
____________________________________
:: Researchers have looked at where USD 1.3 trillion in research funding is spent across the globe. Less than 5 per cent of this money has gone to climate research. Studies that examine how society can cope with the climate of the future are given a very small share of this pot.
Ulla Gjeset Schjølberg JOURNALIST
Nancy Bazilchuk ENGLISH VERSION
PUBLISHED Friday 07. February 2020
In a recent study, researchers at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the University of Sussex reviewed how much of US 1.3 trillion (NOK 11.4 trillion) in research funding is dedicated to climate research.
[…]
Climate change research received just under 4.6 per cent of the research funding allocated between 1990 and 2018, researchers found.
And while research in the natural sciences and technology received about USD 40 billion, social science and humanities research received just USD 4.6 billion during the same period.
An analysis of 1500 grants for social science research aimed at curbing climate change showed that this type of research is being awarded USD 393 million.
[…]
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
Social science should play an important role
[…]
Reference:
Øverland, I. and Sovacool, B.K: «The misallocation of climate research funding». Energy Research & Social Science (2020)
sciencenorway
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
____________________________________
Thei’re lucky, compare
https://www.google.com/search?q=temporary+employment+contracts+statistics&oq=temporary+employment+contracts+statistics+&aqs=chrome.
https://www.google.com/search?client=ms-android-huawei&sxsrf=ALeKk01aKRCIXugns0_OQyUY-xNndoHkFA%3A1582617649029&ei=MdRUXrKvAZqHwPAPvcei0AY&q=temporary+employment+contracts+statistics+usa+2018&oq=temporary+employment+contracts+statistics+usa+2018&gs_l=mobile-gws-wiz-serp.
including nursing staffers, Maintenance / medical staff, technicians, construction workers, drivers / suppliers
….
____________________________________
— that’s up here!
The long version:
Very little money is actually spent on climate research
Researchers have looked at where USD 1.3 trillion in research funding is spent across the globe. Less than 5 per cent of this money has gone to climate research. Studies that examine how society can cope with the climate of the future are given a very small share of this pot.
Ulla Gjeset Schjølberg JOURNALIST
Nancy Bazilchuk ENGLISH VERSION
PUBLISHED Friday 07. February 2020
In a recent study, researchers at the Norwegian Institute of International Affairs (NUPI) and the University of Sussex reviewed how much of US 1.3 trillion (NOK 11.4 trillion) in research funding is dedicated to climate research.
[…]
Climate change research received just under 4.6 per cent of the research funding allocated between 1990 and 2018, researchers found.
And while research in the natural sciences and technology received about USD 40 billion, social science and humanities research received just USD 4.6 billion during the same period.
An analysis of 1500 grants for social science research aimed at curbing climate change showed that this type of research is being awarded USD 393 million.
[…]
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
Social science should play an important role
[…]
Reference:
Øverland, I. and Sovacool, B.K: «The misallocation of climate research funding». Energy Research & Social Science (2020)
sciencenorway
“The one-sided emphasis on the natural sciences leaves one wondering whether funding for climate research is managed by climate sceptics. It’s as if they don’t quite believe in climate change, so they keep trying to find out how it really works, rather than trying to work out how to stop it,” researcher Indra Øverland said in a NUPI press release.
https://www.indeed.com/career-advice/careers/what-does-a-nursing-assistant-do
My fault –
That’s a good one:
They have opted for decibels, not debate, simulated not stimulated analysis.
These are the hallmarks of those who claim belief in AG climate change, but they will believe more firmly when there is some solid proof of it.
Let’s ease them up –
they will believe more firmly when there is some solid proof of it –> they will believe more firmly with stopping all dissent.
Failing reply they’d take as solid proof of victory, so they can stumble further unheeded.