Trees and land absorbed almost no CO2 last year. Is nature’s carbon sink failing? | The sudden collapse of carbon sinks was not factored into climate models – and could rapidly accelerate global heating

1. 2024-10-18 at 5:12 PM UTC

   #41
   

   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole
   Any "study" funded by the government is worthless and devoid of any and all credibility.
2. 2024-10-18 at 5:16 PM UTC

   #42
   

   the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]

   Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Any "study" funded by the government is worthless and devoid of any and all credibility.

   
   The study's funding originates from different institutions: Department of Earth System Science at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy at the University of Exeter in the UK, and Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement in France.
   The funding for this study comes from a combination of academic and research institutions across China, the UK, and France, indicating a mix of university and government funding support."
   
   Department of Earth System Science at Tsinghua University (China):
   
   Likely supported by university funds as well as government research grants from Chinese national science agencies like the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) or other state-funded initiatives.
   Tsinghua University is one of China's top universities and often receives both domestic government support and funding from international collaborations.
   
   Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy at the University of Exeter (UK):
   
   Likely funded by a mix of university resources and research grants from UK government bodies such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), particularly from its science-focused arms like Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
   The University of Exeter is known for collaborating on international research projects, meaning it could also receive grants from European Union funds or other international bodies.
   
   Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement (LSCE) in France:
   
   This laboratory is part of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), and often receives support from French national agencies such as the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).
   LSCE also participates in large European and international climate research programs, meaning it could be funded by European Union research grants or other international scientific initiatives, alongside French government funding.
3. 2024-10-18 at 5:50 PM UTC

   #43
   

   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole

   Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood The study's funding originates from different institutions: Department of Earth System Science at Tsinghua University in Beijing, Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy at the University of Exeter in the UK, and Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement in France.
   The funding for this study comes from a combination of academic and research institutions across China, the UK, and France, indicating a mix of university and government funding support."
   
   Department of Earth System Science at Tsinghua University (China):
   
   Likely supported by university funds as well as government research grants from Chinese national science agencies like the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) or other state-funded initiatives.
   Tsinghua University is one of China's top universities and often receives both domestic government support and funding from international collaborations.
   
   Faculty of Environment, Science and Economy at the University of Exeter (UK):
   
   Likely funded by a mix of university resources and research grants from UK government bodies such as UK Research and Innovation (UKRI), particularly from its science-focused arms like Natural Environment Research Council (NERC).
   The University of Exeter is known for collaborating on international research projects, meaning it could also receive grants from European Union funds or other international bodies.
   
   Laboratoire des sciences du climat et de l'environnement (LSCE) in France:
   
   This laboratory is part of the French Alternative Energies and Atomic Energy Commission (CEA), and often receives support from French national agencies such as the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS).
   LSCE also participates in large European and international climate research programs, meaning it could be funded by European Union research grants or other international scientific initiatives, alongside French government funding.

   
   Every organization you've listed gets government money, which automatically disqualifies them as credible sources.
4. 2024-10-18 at 5:58 PM UTC

   #44
   

   the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]

   Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Any "study" funded by the government is worthless and devoid of any and all credibility.

   
   

   Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Every organization you've listed gets government money, which automatically disqualifies them as credible sources.

   Universities are mostly private funded I think.
   I would agree but that would mean discrediting all science.
   
   The same argument can be used for a 100% private funded study by PEPSI CO saying cola is totally healthy.
   
   The reality is that science is oriented in such a way that it would not exist in the same capacity without public funding which I think is a problem but not enough to discredit all of it outright.
   
   It's just like people that say Elon is a welfare queen for taking government grants but anyone who doesn't take grants goes out of business so it's just not very realistic.
   
   If these people never took public money they would not be climate scientists doing this research in the first place but I don't really see how that discredits any research as long as the science can be repeated
5. 2024-10-18 at 6:09 PM UTC

   #45
   

   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole
   Every single university, without exception, gets government money, therefore they are all compromised and cannot be considered credible. If they don't provide the "right science", they don't get the money. It's like two plus two equals four. The moment money enters into science, the science has been corrupted. Same with politics and medicine.
6. 2024-10-18 at 6:14 PM UTC

   #46
   

   the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]

   Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Every single university, without exception, gets government money, therefore they are all compromised and cannot be considered credible. If they don't provide the "right science", they don't get the money. It's like two plus two equals four. The moment money enters into science, the science has been corrupted. Same with politics and medicine.

   
   I think it would only be 50/50 private/public funding for most Universities at most. Some of them are almost completely private funded entirely by tuition and profit generating ventures
   
   Universities can exist just fine without public funding. Science and facts don'T care if they are funded by the most biased people possible. If Joe Brandon and Hitler funded a study it wouldn't matter as long as the science was legit.
   That's why they took the nazi scientists
   
   There is no "Nazi Science" there is only science.
7. 2024-10-18 at 6:43 PM UTC

   #47
   

   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole

   Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood …if Brandon and Hitler funded a study it wouldn't matter as long as the science was legit…

   
   Yes, it would matter, because you have no way of knowing if their science is legit, and you have every reason to believe it's not legit.
8. 2024-10-18 at 10:20 PM UTC

   #48
   

   the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]
   As long as it's repeatable it does not matter how biased the research is. If anyone else can repeat the experiments with similar results this is the basis of true peer reviewed science.
   
   This is the same logic that can be applied to Theological origins of certain sciences which some people try to discredit but the reality is that a Church or Government institution can produce real science. It's simply an output of economic input and even a tribal society or communists can engage in the sciences.
   
   

   “If all men by nature desire to know, then they desire most of all the greatest knowledge of science. And he immediately indicates what the greatest science is, namely the science which is about those things that are most knowable. But there are two senses in which things are said to be maximally knowable: either because they are the first of all things known and without them nothing else can be known; or because they are what are known most certainly. In either way, however, this science is about the most knowable. Therefore, this most of all is a science and, consequently, most desirable.”
   ― John Duns Scotus

9. 2024-10-18 at 10:25 PM UTC

   #49
   

   ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole

   Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood As long as it's repeatable it does not matter how biased the research is. If anyone else can repeat the experiments with similar results this is the basis of true peer reviewed science.
   
   This is the same logic that can be applied to Theological origins of certain sciences which some people try to discredit but the reality is that a Church or Government institution can produce real science. It's simply an output of economic input and even a tribal society or communists can engage in the sciences.

   
   Corruption is like an especially virulent cancer, which spreads out its tendrils to infiltrate the entire living host. The thought that the many make right no longer applies, as the cancer is now in its final stages. One good rule is that if there is money or power involved, it can be dismissed without a second thought as worthless. Real science today must be unpolluted, uncompromised, unfunded.
10. 2024-10-18 at 10:39 PM UTC

    #50
    

    the man who put it in my hood Black Hole [miraculously counterclaim my golf]
    Science cannot be polluted because truth is binary, you're either right or wrong with mild nuance in-between in which climate research and the green movement skirts upon, and it's up to them to prove their theories more than for the public to "trust the science" and accept everything approved by the government at face value.
    
    Because anyone can fall into the error of trying to pass of bad science they fund themselves. But that same freeDUMB also allows anyone to compete with any established theory and this competition will always keep the truth in balance and harmony.
11. 2024-10-19 at 1:41 AM UTC

    #51
    

    ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ Black Hole

    Originally posted by the man who put it in my hood Because anyone can fall into the error of trying to pass of bad science they fund themselves.

    
    But if enough people who fund themselves, credible, independent, unbiased, unpolluted sources, agree on a thing, then it's likely to be true.
12. 2024-10-19 at 2:27 AM UTC

    #52
    

    Speedy Parker Black Hole

    Originally posted by ⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀⠀ But if enough people who fund themselves, credible, independent, unbiased, unpolluted sources, agree on a thing, then it's likely to be true.

    
    Tesla
    Edison
    Westinghouse
    
    The truth is whatever the money says it is.
    
    🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵🖤💵