Brazil is ALL-IN on Renewable Energy and Electric Vehicles

Sorry, but this is not the "main takeaway". You made a jump from what was primarily factual (i.e. IPCC is a purveyor of information) to your opinions.

https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2021/07/AR6_FS_approve.pdf

IPCC reports are developed through multiple rounds of drafting and review. (See IPCC Factsheet – How does the IPCC review process work?) As the culmination of a report’s development, IPCC member governments endorse the report. The endorsement process is based on a dialogue between those who will use the report – the governments – and those who write it – the scientists. Endorsement by governments acknowledges that the report is a definitive assessment that has been developed following the IPCC’s defined procedures, underpinning the report’s authority. The IPCC has different levels of endorsement, including “approval”, “adoption” and “acceptance”1 . “Approval” is the process used for IPCC Summaries for Policymakers (SPMs). Approval signifies that the material has been subject to detailed, line-by-line discussion, leading to agreement among the participating IPCC member countries, in consultation with the scientists responsible for drafting the report. This process strengthens the SPM by ensuring that SPM statements are as direct, clear and unambiguous as possible in summarizing the material contained in the corresponding Working Group Assessment Report or Special Report. Participation of assessment authors ensures that any changes to the SPM are consistent with the underlying report and are scientifically robust. “Adoption” is the process used for IPCC Synthesis Reports. Adoption is a section-by-section discussion leading to agreement among participating governments in consultation with the authors. This process ensures that the Synthesis Report effectively integrates material from the underlying Working Group Assessment Reports and Special Reports. The SPM of a Synthesis Report is approved line by line, as described above. “Acceptance” is the process used for the full underlying report in a Working Group Assessment Report or a Special Report after its SPM has been approved. Acceptance by governments signifies that the Technical Summary and chapters of the underlying report present a comprehensive, objective and balanced view of the subject matter. Acceptance does not involve line-by-line discussion and consultation between the scientists and the governments. Changes (other than grammatical or minor editorial changes) after acceptance are limited to those necessary to ensure consistency with the Summary for Policymakers, and are identified in writing after SPM approval.

 

Your content does not address my post. Nothing I posted is my opinion. The IPCC reports are narratives (literature reviews). Not my opinion. Read my links and at least the pull quotes.


The fact governments accept or reject or force revisions has no bearing on the fact IPCC reports are not systematic reviews that include all relevant data and evidence.

Please read the pull quotes in my post. They are not my opinions.

 

OK, maybe your source switched from fact to opinion then.

 

No. It seems facts conflict with your opinion.

You are welcome to provide evidence the IPCC reports are not narrative formatted literature reviews. You are welcome to provide evidence these literature reviews use unbiased computer aided selection practices for choosing evidence for inclusion, making them unbiased systematic reviews. You are welcome to provide evidence there is no meaningful difference between literature reviews, systematic reviews and meta analysis.

But until that evidence is produced, it’s you who has offered opinions. No one else.

 

Considering that 99% of Climatologists are in agreement with the IPCC analyis and conclusions, I think the other 1% is obligated to make their attempts to disprove the IPCC science. And simply stating the IPCC document format is not their liking, is not a disproof of anything.

 

No. 99% of climatologists are not in agreement with IPCC analysis and conclusions. What gives you that idea?

Are you referring to the surveys of climatologists who believe AGW exists?

I know this surprises many folks, but the thousands and thousands of pages of IPCC reports deal with a lot more than greenhouse gas warming the planet.

I’m genuinely curious why you think 99% of climatologists agree with the thousands and thousands of pages of the IPPC literature reviews? Do you have ANY evidence to support that opinion?

 

If I recall, that statistic was made up by the Obama administration. It's always been a convenient lie.

 

The IPCC reports are like the Bible is to many Christians. Never read. Assumed to be infallible.

It’s best to keep one’s brain active and not abdicate the thinking and application of logic to easily appealed to authorities.

 

empty

 

If I recall correctly that "97%" trope wasn't produced by scientific/statistical process. Their statical methods were, in fact crude, it was not peer-reviewed before release.

 

Climate Change is an inconvenient truth.

 

Give it up 557 exposed your lack of knowledge about what the IPCC reports talks about because you didn't answer his statements about it all you do is make opinionated statements on the IPCC stuff.

Meanwhile Climate change is a made up paradigm because warmist/ alarmists wants to claim the world is heading for doom but most parts of the world has had the SAME climate the entire Interglacial period!

My Eastern Washington region has been semi arid for the entire interglacial period.

Koppen Climate Classification LINK

I showed you the classification for my area, BSk

Dry, Semi-arid, cold

It has been that way since Glaciation ended.

 

This would be the 1%er view.

 

That's not merely denial, but thoughtless denial.

 

For most of us, who have Scientific degrees, and expertise in certain specific areas of Science, we trust our fellow certified Scientists when 99% of the field issue statements and warnings.

 

"Generally speaking, we can observe that the scientists in any particular institutional and political setting move as a flock, reserving their controversies and particular originalities for matters that do not call into question the fundamental system of biases they share."
—Gunnar Myrdal, Objectivity in Social Research

 

As usual you have no cogent counterpoint to offer which is why you can't sway anyone while I have swayed a few over the years as the barrage of base data I provide becomes too hard to ignore.

 

Yeah your a legend in your own mind.

 

I believe "you're" was intended.

 

LOL,

you are batting zero as your inability to debate on anything I post is fast becoming legendary as your failure to address 557's post I alluded to shows that you run on nothing but empty words.

FACT: Climate Change isn't happening in my region at all.

 

Any country with ample hydro-power should go all-in with hydro power generation, and Brazil has the 3rd most in the world (behind Russia and China), and Brazil also provides 75% of energy needs for Paraguay. We do not have that luxury in US. Brazil also has plenty of solar.

 

Latest - EVs are pouring into Brazil, as companies are trying to take advantage of the no-tariff policy which is soon to start phasing out.

https://www.933thedrive.com/2024/04...-electric-vehicles-surge-ahead-of-new-tariff/

Brazil imports of Chinese electric vehicles surge ahead of new tariff

Import taxes for electric vehicles had been reduced to zero since 2015, but President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva is restoring them this year to encourage development of the domestic auto industry.

Importation of 100% electric vehicles (EV) became subject to a 10% tax since January, which will increase to 18% in July and eventually reach 35% in July 2026.
...
According to the Brazilian Electric Vehicle Association (ABVE), sales of electrified cars in Brazil rose 145% in the first quarter compared to the same period the previous year, to 36,090.

BYD led the pack (14,939), followed by GWM (5,735) and Toyota (5,049).

 

Subsidy-led trade.

 

Consumer demand for a better product.

 

Now that is not true since it is the government who are FORCING the situation along with exceptional tax and subsidy favorability while eliminating the existence of new ICE in the near future to get EV's into the forefront which is why it has begun to collapse as it isn't running a true market paradigm.