@johananderberg@unherd Sweden relied more heavily on voluntary measures than other Scandinavian countries did, and, unfortunately, they paid a heavy price for it. Their death rate from Covid-19 was MUCH WORSE than neighboring countries, and 5.4× worse than those countries' average Covid-19 death rates.
@johananderberg@unherd Most Eastern European countries did even worse than Sweden, as did the United States and a few other Western European countries. But that certainly doesn't mean Sweden did well. The Swedish experiment was a disaster.
That's almost as bad as the USA:
697,041 / 333,373,690 = 0.209%
@johananderberg@unherd The good news is that although Sweden's vaccination program got off to a slow start, their vaccination rate now exceeds most other countries, including the United States. That's lowering Sweden's rates of new Covid-19 cases and deaths:
1/5. I trust that it is obvious to you that the most important effects of climate change are on agriculture. Right?
So if you really want to read the best relevant scholarly literature, you should start with agronomy papers. Agronomy is a much older, more rigorous, and less politicized field than "climate science," and it's the field which studies the effects of CO2 and climate change on agriculture.
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 2/5. For instance, here's a paper about wheat:
Fitzgerald GJ, et al. (2016) Elevated atmospheric CO2 can dramatically increase wheat yields in semi-arid environments and buffer against heat waves. Glob Chang Biol. 22(6):2269-84. doi:10.1111/gcb.13263.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.11…
@JDubbs1982 @Bidenisafacist @ChrisMartzWX 3/5. That doesn't even take into account the direct benefits of fossil fuels.
1/15≫ Dr. Belch (why oh why isn't she a gastroenterologist?) seems not to recognize the significance of the story.
Climate activists predicted that if Earth's average temperature got to 1.5°C above the pre-industrial (late Little Ice Age) baseline it would be a disaster. But they did, and nothing bad happened.
The significance of that is that it means the climate activists were completely wrong.
2/15≫ In case you're wondering, the 4 known factors which caused 2023 to be so mild were:
1. A strong El Niño spike. And
2. IMO 2020 shipping regulations drastically reduced sulfate aerosol air pollution (The IMO says they resulted in "an estimated 46% decrease in ship-emitted aerosols," which equates to a sudden 10% decrease in total global SO2 emissions, which is a large improvement in a short time, with a significant warming effect). And
3. The unusual 2022 Hunga Tonga eruption, which humidified the stratosphere. And
4. Also a little bit of warming from the ongoing slow rise in atmospheric CO2 levels (though only about 25 ppmv/decade).
It's all good, though (unfortunately) #1 & #3 are temporary.
3/15≫
Q: And what was the result of all that warmth?
1/7. Contrary to Prof. Christopher Taylor's claim, global greening is not "maxed out." That outlier Baozhang Chen study he cited is even contradicted by the IPCC:
2/7. Here's a compilation of that thread (because Twitter/𝕏 keeps shadowbanning my tweetstorms):
@elonmusk, @lindayaX, @support, @premium PLEASE end 𝕏's SHADOWBANNING of replies — even replies to one's own tweets (tweetstorms). What good is a tweetstorm if you can't find the 2nd tweet while viewing the 1st?threadreaderapp.com/thread/1719382…
3/7. Xin Chen et al (2024) refutes that outlier Baozhang Chen et al (2022) study:
Chen, Xin et al (2024). The global greening continues despite increased drought stress since 2000. Global Ecology and Conservation, Volume 49, 2024, e02791, doi:10.1016/j.gecco.2023.e02791.sciencedirect.com/science/articl…
1/10. When climate activists like Prof. Christopher Taylor have the power to block publication and deny tenure to young professors with differing opinions, it corrupts academia and distorts science.
2/10. Scientific consensuses exist about many things, but we don't talk much about them, because we don't disagree about them. If there's a hot debate about the existence of a consensus, it means there's no consensus.
3/10. One of the dishonest tactics used by the parasitic climate industry to promote their products is to pretend there's a scientific consensus that the "climate crisis" is real. That's a plain lie.