What could possibly go wrong?

U.K. to Fund ‘Small-Scale’ Outdoor Geoengineering Tests

A British science agency will provide 57 million pounds, or about $75 million, for researchers to examine ideas for artificially cooling the planet — including outdoor experiments to determine whether any of those ideas could actually work.

The announcement, by the Advanced Research and Invention Agency, or ARIA, is among the largest single infusions of money to date toward research into “solar geoengineering”: the notion of injecting particles into the air to deflect some of the sun’s radiation back into space with the goal of reducing the Earth’s temperature.

The government initiative is focused on testing several types of solar geoengineering. Those approaches could include injecting aerosols, such as sulfur dioxide, into the stratosphere or shooting sea-salt aerosols into low-lying marine clouds to reflect more sunlight away from the Earth.

Frank Keutsch, a geoengineering researcher at Harvard, said that as far as he knew, it was the first time that a government has called for proposals for outdoor experiments.

So, what happens if they test these, and actually mess up the climate? Because it is primarily driven by water vapor and the big nuclear furnace at the center of the solar system. But, hey, it’s a wonderful way to burn taxpayer money for usually no results.

There was, believe it or not, a time when the NY Times was the most respected newspaper in the country, and one of the most respected in the world. Now? We get this insanity

Good grief, this is a real article https://t.co/HDnRMbICjo

— William Teach2 🏴‍☠️ #refuseresist (@WTeach2) September 12, 2024

It’s real

Lawsuits against fossil fuel companies over climate change are piling up. Legislators and activists are pushing prosecutors to pursue criminal charges. Children are suing governments, arguing that their right to a healthy environment is being trampled on.

Welcome to the new universe of climate litigation, where the courts have become one of the most important battlegrounds in the fight over the greenhouse gas emissions warming the planet.

Of course, most of those who are suing are themselves using vast amounts of petroleum. Anyhow, lots of blah blah blah till

There are growing calls for prosecutors to consider criminal charges related to climate change.

This year, Senator Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island and Representative Jamie Raskin of Maryland, both Democrats, called on Attorney General Merrick Garland to investigate oil companies for what they called a “decades-long disinformation campaign” about the effects of fossil fuels.

In a recent paper in The Harvard Environmental Law Review, David Arkush, of the advocacy group Public Citizen, and Donald Braman, a law professor at George Washington University, argued that in the United States, fossil fuel companies could be charged with types of homicide short of first-degree murder based on claims of deception about climate change.

It’s always something with this doomsday cult. Did they have to do this during the previous Holocene warm periods? We know they had a lot of problems growing wheat during the Little Ice Age, which made making bread difficult

Can better bread be a climate change solution? These bakers think so

It’s a drizzly, cold spring day outside, but inside the Washington State University Breadlab in the Skagit Valley, richly scented steam billows out of a toasty commercial oven as baker Mel Darbyshire pulls out a tray of puffy mahogany loaves of bread.

“They look excellent,” she says, inhaling and examining their shiny, domed crusts. She pops one out of its tin and cuts into it. The slice looks exactly like the bread emoji — fluffy-topped and perfectly shaped — only this bread is a rich, warm brown on the inside.

That’s because it’s made from 100% whole wheat flour. And not just any whole wheat: a mix of different types of wheat called a “Climate Blend,” developed specifically to withstand the increasingly intense weather brought on by human-caused climate change. Both of those factors make this loaf a paragon for the future and a symbol of what bread can be in a climate-changed future.

On top of that, “it tastes amazing,” says Darbyshire.

That whole 1.6F increase in 174 years has been dangerous, eh?

That consistency has a price, says Jones. To produce flour that looks and behaves so consistently, the wheat it comes from has to be relatively uniform. That pushes farmers and wheat breeders to create and plant wheat varieties that are also relatively uniform, genetically selecting over time for plants of a certain height, or kernels a certain color and hardness.

Consistency is good for a product like flour; it helps keep a product like bread predictable. But it can be risky for plants themselves. In a field of plants that are genetically similar to each other — like siblings instead of two strangers from opposite sides of the world — a risk to one is a risk to all. A sensitivity to heat could wipe out a whole field, or region, if a heat wave comes along. A susceptibility to disease or pests could ruin a crop.

Jones, and many other crop scientists, have long been concerned that such selection also narrows the biodiversity of crops within a field, a farm, or even a whole region. That could, they think, increase the vulnerability of a crop. There are real-life examples of such disasters: Ireland’s Great Famine of the 1840s, for example, was driven by a potato blight disease that wiped out fields across the country and led to more than a million deaths.

But, that makes sense, because the climate, and the weather that makes up climate, is always changing. However, other reports say that wheat production is even more diversified than 100 years ago.

“If we have a chaotic climate, our strategy is to have genetic chaos in the field,” says Jones. “To strike back, to fight chaos with chaos.”

This could have been avoided, but, you like to take fossil fueled flights to Pacific islands for vacations

Climate change leaves future of Pacific Islands tourism ‘highly uncertain’

The Pacific Islands are scattered across a vast area of ocean, with some of the clearest waters in the world, and pristine beaches and rainforests.

They are a magnet for tourism, which is vital for many of the countries’ economies.

But the region’s travel industry, and those who rely on it, are increasingly fearful of the impact of continuing climate change.

“Pacific Island leaders have declared climate change as the foremost threat to the livelihoods, security, and well-being of Pacific communities,” says Christopher Cocker, the chief executive of the Pacific Tourism Organisation.

“Without immediate and innovative action, the future of tourism in the region remains highly uncertain.”

Blah blah blah. It’s a ridiculously long article that shocking, or, being that the BBC is a mouthpiece for the Cult of Climastrology, unshockingly, fails to consider that these islands would revert back to their pre-colonial pasts without fossil fuels. No one is coming on sailing ships. All these island nations have lots and lots of airports for planes and helicopters. They receive most of their goods and tourists via fossil fueled planes, along with fossil fueled cargo ships. They often use fossil fuels for their own fishing boats.

The group champions sustainable tourism and environment protection, and is restoring mangroves and planting trees. But Ms Vakacola tells me that this part of Viti Levu, Fiji’s biggest island, is already living with the consequences of warming temperatures.

Bore water is being contaminated by salinity from the encroaching sea and, more and more, rainwater must be harvested during the wet season.

“Water security is a big risk in terms of climate change,” explains Ms Vakacola.

Considering most of these islands were created from corals, rather than being volcanic in nature, did they ever consider that the seas have been much higher in the past?

Anyhow, what they really want is money. They do not want tourists to stop coming on fossil fueled airplanes.

Why can’t these nags just mind their own business?

Scientist calls for Americans to cut off air conditioning in summer, claiming it causes global warming

A scientist is calling for Americans to cut off air conditioning after refusing to use it for 25 years during the throes of the summer in order to combat climate change.

Stan Cox is an Ecosphere Fellow at the Land Institute who also believes the U.S. military is an “enemy” to mitigating climate change. He wrote a guest essay in the New York Times on Saturday, “I Swore Off Air-Conditioning, and You Can, Too,” claiming that “air-conditioning is making our summers even hotter” due to climate change.

“The greenhouse gases created by the roughly 90 percent of American households that own A.C. units mean that running them even in balmy temperatures is making the climate crisis worse,” Cox wrote.

Yeah yeah yeah. You do you. Leave the rest of us alone. Of course, you know that these cultists want to get the government to force people to turn the AC off, or, at least keep it at a much higher temperature.

For those who might say it’s a drastic step that’s too far, Cox believes that they’ll get used to living without AC.

“Our species evolved, biologically and culturally, under wildly varying climatic conditions, and we haven’t lost that ability to adapt. Research suggests that when we spend more time in warm or hot summer weather, we can start feeling comfortable at temperatures that once felt insufferable. That’s the key to reducing dependence on air-conditioning: The less you use it, the easier it is to live without it,” he said.

Piss off. No one asked for your opinion or advice.

It’s because of uncertainty over the U.S. elections or something

Australia may delay release of 2035 climate target as world awaits outcome of US election

The Australian government may delay the announcement of a 2035 climate target until after the February deadline and beyond the next election, in part due to uncertainty about the ramifications of the US presidential election.

Some big emitting countries are lagging in developing their 2035 emissions reduction targets, which under the Paris climate agreement are due before the UN climate summit in Belém, Brazil, in November next year.

Major investors said they were comfortable with countries delaying target announcements if it meant they did the work to make a commitment that was “aligned with science” and reaching “for the highest possible level of ambition”.

Globally, governments are watching the US election before finalising their 2035 commitments. Observers believe Kamala Harris will quickly announce a target if successful but Donald Trump, who has called the climate crisis a “hoax”, has said he would again pull the US out of the Paris deal.

The article really offers no good reason other than “Trump.” If Trump wins, countries are still welcome to institute their wackadoodle doomsday cult policies. Maybe these countries are just coming up with excuses to not destroy their economies?