@Finn dAbuzz,
Finn dAbuzz wrote:
And most scientists supporting CC are looking to preserve their government grants.
That applies to all scientists, whatever their field, and yet we can trust biologists and astronomers to (most of times) not deform their findings to please their governments. Scientists go by a certain ethic, you know?
Besides, most governments would be delighted to get studies showing GW is a minor threat. They would be totally OK to fund such research. The incentives to exagerate GW are therefore very weak. Much weaker than the incentives by Big Oil to minimize GW. And it's a fact that there is a large disinformation industry funded by oil companies to deny GW.
Quote:Even with a president as committed to the notion as Obama, the US refused to do what the "experts" say must be done to stave off CC effects, and this doesn't even take into consideration China, Russia and India.
Yes. Dismal American leadership on this issue.
Quote:The means to stop the predicted calamity are not going to materialize, so you probably should start hoping the "deniers" are right, or get behind the currently feeble mitigation efforts.
What you and I hope is pretty irrelevant in this matter.
Quote:BTW - What is France doing about CC?
The carbon footprint of the average Frenchman is 5.1 ton per year. That's 3 times less than the average American: 16.1 ton per year (2015 data acording to Wikipedia). That's primarily because of 1) heavy reliance on nuclear power and (to a lesser extent) hydrolic electricity; 2) strong, state-of-the-art public transport (fast speed trains cut down air travel, good general state of other subway, rail and bus services decreases the use of individual cars); 3) good house insulation against cold, and lesser use of air con.
There are also subsidies for wind mills and some farms have been developed. Not enough to my liking. So far France's share of renewable energy remains very small.
