Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[Elvis]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientifi ... Publishing

Scientific Research Publishing (SCIRP) is a predatory[1][2][3] academic publisher of open-access electronic journals, conference proceedings, and scientific anthologies that are considered to be of questionable quality.

...

The company has been accused of using email spam to solicit papers for submission.[8] Although it has an address in southern California, according to Jeffrey Beall it is a Chinese operation.[8] In 2014 there was a mass resignation of the editorial board of one of the company's journals, Advances in Anthropology, with the outgoing editor-in-chief saying of the publisher "For them it was only about making money. We were simply their 'front'."

...

In 2021 Cabells' Predatory Reports described SCIRP as a "well-known predatory publisher".[2] In the Norwegian Scientific Index the publisher and all of its journals have a rating of 0 (non-academic).[18] An academic study published in 2022 stated that SCIRP was "widely known to host 'fake journals'".[3]

...

http://www.scirp.org is operated by Wuhan Erwan Culture Communication Co., Ltd.[19][20] Wuhan Erwan Culture Communication Co., Ltd is primarily owned by Wuhan Grand Technology Service Co., Ltd.[19] Engineering Information Institute, a member or source content provider of SCIRP, is also owned by Wuhan Erwan Culture Communication Co., Ltd.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
The latter stages of desperate efforts among the dogmatists.

Shooting the messenger, rather than addressing the message, are one of several fallacy tactics, part of a refusal to consider that perhaps their positions are hardly as sound or firm as they continue to insist they are.

I will also reiterate what has been indicated before: the studies and/or info shared here are mere samples. There are other sources out there with similar findings, so attempting to attack a source rather than the content is, minimally, a short-sighted and often lazy tactic.

Also, by way of an example: it was not long ago that Reuters and essentially all media/govt talking heads admonished any mention of mRNA products being anything other than safe, effective, and sterilizing. Now we see even the NYTimes acknowledging harms of these products. A source being faulty — if indeed a source is faulty and not part of an effort to ‘source-smear’ any counters to status quo dogma — does not by itself negate the validity of information, in part or otherwise. We here in RI should be well-past such tactics by now. But it seems, at least in certain scenarios, there has been regression; a trait observed both at the micro and macro levels over the last several years.

Despite the repeated stamping of feet by those that still refuse to consider that perhaps they may have been misled (at least in certain respects), the reality is there are myriad reasons for temperature/climate fluctuations globally, none of which require the involvement of CO2, necessarily. In particular: available info and observations suggest CO2 emissions by civilian populations are largely non-factors with respect to 'climate change'.

The simple fact here is that there is NO justification for any austerity measures imposed on civilian/general populations.

It's quite evident at this point, and increasingly pathetic that this notion continues to receive such pushback.

Ironically, those that claim to be non-religious are showcasing themselves to be dogmatic absolutists.

[DrEvil]

.
The latter stages of desperate efforts among the dogmatists.

Shooting the messenger, rather than addressing the message, are one of several fallacy tactics, part of a refusal to consider that perhaps their positions are hardly as sound or firm as they continue to insist they are.

The message is shit. It was literally paid for by the authors to be published in a vanity journal. That's really all you need to know when deciding how seriously to take it, which is: not at all.

I will also reiterate what has been indicated before: the studies and/or info shared here are mere samples. There are other sources out there with similar findings, so attempting to attack a source rather than the content is, minimally, a short-sighted and often lazy tactic.

So why do you only post the bad ones? Give us the good stuff!

I would also like to point out that you attack the source all the time, so maybe don't be such a hypocrite.

Also, by way of an example: it was not long ago that Reuters and essentially all media/govt talking heads admonished any mention of mRNA products being anything other than safe, effective, and sterilizing. Now we see even the NYTimes acknowledging harms of these products. A source being faulty — if indeed a source is faulty and not part of an effort to ‘source-smear’ any counters to status quo dogma — does not by itself negate the validity of information, in part or otherwise. We here in RI should be well-past such tactics by now. But it seems, at least in certain scenarios, there has been regression; a trait observed both at the micro and macro levels over the last several years.

Ah yes, the ritual covid rant.

Despite the repeated stamping of feet by those that still refuse to consider that perhaps they may have been misled (at least in certain respects), the reality is there are myriad reasons for temperature/climate fluctuations globally, none of which require the involvement of CO2, necessarily. In particular: available info and observations suggest CO2 emissions by civilian populations are largely non-factors with respect to 'climate change'.

That's wrong. Look at any chart showing emissions by sector and it's abundantly clear that the biggest source is us, civilian populations (there's eight billion of us. Rich people are a tiny fraction, something we should remind them of more often). Electricity, land use for our food and parking lots and timber, transporting food and cheap shit from China, buildings we live and work in, industry that makes shit we consume, or shit that goes into the shit we consume, etc.

Does it never occur to you to consider that you've been misled? Specifically by the paid shills of the oil industry, which, and I'm starting to get tired of saying this, is the only conspiracy here we know for a fact is real and ongoing.

The simple fact here is that there is NO justification for any austerity measures imposed on civilian/general populations.

It's quite evident at this point, and increasingly pathetic that this notion continues to receive such pushback.

Ironically, those that claim to be non-religious are showcasing themselves to be dogmatic absolutists.

What exactly are these austerity measures you keep mentioning?

[SonicG]

"civilian populations "
I hesitate to make the correction since you are probably well aware of this:

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

and most likely agree that let's eliminate the US military, then the Chinese, then the Russian, and see how things go...

[Belligerent Savant]

^^^^

Indeed, I (and others, if I recall) raised the point a while back about the immense amount of gas, oil and carbon expended by the U.S and other militaries, yet NONE of these climate ‘alarmists’ ever once reference this as a priority for any curbing as far as emissions (given their belief that such emissions have a direct impact on climate).
To the contrary, without irony they will support military aggression (mass bombing campaigns, destruction of property, civilian lives, etc) in the Ukraine, Gaza region, or wherever the next ‘current thing’ will be while at the same time clamoring for ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon offsets’, etc.

Post-satire.
Idiocy.

[Belligerent Savant]

Also: this needs to be reiterated because I remain in awe of the naïveté that can continue to be expressed given all we’ve collectively observed as (older) humans traversing this reality:


Any expression that earnestly posits that ‘climate alarm’/‘climate change’ initiatives — as pushed by governments/multi-national corporates, Blackrock, et al. — are in alignment with (or in favor of) “crushing capitalism” (as blurted by one of our forum members here recently) is non-serious, laughable, and/or otherwise tragically naive.

As such, there is no benefit or value in continuing a dialogue with a person that earnestly holds such a position, as they have become — or have been for some time — a zealot/dogmatist, wholly incapable of any consideration for other perspectives.


‘Climate alarm’ and their adherents have become a dangerous fucking cult. They are and will continue to cause collective harms. One of many examples that can be provided of their unhinged lunacy:

@reapingandy
·
Joshua Tree is easily one of the most beautiful and unique places in the country and destroying any part of it is a demoralization project of the highest order.

https://x.com/reapingandy/status/1787138776289931307

[Belligerent Savant]

I'm going to reiterate one last time here: my premise is NOT that climate fluctuations aren't occurring; indeed, climate fluctuations -- sometimes sudden, sometimes drawn out -- have occurred thoughout the history of the world, well before humans existed. The point is that 'climate alarm' is foolish as there will always be fluctuations to climate for myriad reasons. Austerity measures will NOT change these fluctuations. To believe otherwise is to believe in non-science and propaganda.

The Earth’s atmosphere is far more complex than our current models can handle.

That aside, the reality is that our human-era climate -- the climate experienced on Earth throughout most if not all of of human existence -- is actually anomalous/non-standard. What we may be experiencing, over the course of the next few hundred years [certainly not imminently] is a 'regression to the mean'.

Much of Earth's history consisted of 'Equable Climate':
https://groups.seas.harvard.edu/climate ... index.html

Equable Climate? What Does That Mean?

During various points in the Earth's history, the global climate has been equable. You are probably wondering what an equable climate is. Simply put, it is a period in Earth's history when the temperature was roughly equal everywhere in the world. In the past, this state existed because the poles were significantly warmer than they are currently, while the Tropics remained at roughly present day temperatures.

When the Earth has an equable climate, the equator to pole temperature difference (EPTD) is much lower than it is now, and the seasonality—the temperature variation from summer to winter—is also much lower. Fifty million years ago, during a recent era of equable climate, sea surface temperatures in the Arctic Ocean were in the subtropical range, between 64° and 77°F; In Antarctica, palm trees grew and frost was a rare event. In effect, the tropics extended north and south from the equator much further than they do now, and subtropical conditions extended from there to the poles.

It was a very different world. The only glaciers were on high mountains close to the poles. The only deserts were in the rain shadows of tall mountain ranges. Snow was a rarity away from mountain summits. The Sahara and the Arabian peninsula? Green and fertile, watered with regular rains. The world was wrapped in a springtime that lasted for millions of years.

It should go without typing that even if the Earth returned to the exact same climate as described above, it would NOT be 'devastating'. To the contrary. Further: if the Earth does indeed return to an 'Equable Climate', it will not happen suddenly, but rather, gradually over hundreds of years. PLENTY of time for sensible, incremental adjustments to living conditions in the appropriate regions.

[SonicG]

^^^^

Indeed, I (and others, if I recall) raised the point a while back about the immense amount of gas, oil and carbon expended by the U.S and other militaries, yet NONE of these climate ‘alarmists’ ever once reference this as a priority for any curbing as far as emissions (given their belief that such emissions have a direct impact on climate).
To the contrary, without irony they will support military aggression (mass bombing campaigns, destruction of property, civilian lives, etc) in the Ukraine, Gaza region, or wherever the next ‘current thing’ will be while at the same time clamoring for ‘net zero’ and ‘carbon offsets’, etc.

Post-satire.
Idiocy.

Nord Stream Gas Leaks May Be a New Disaster for the Climate
Germany estimates 300,000 metric tons of methane escapes
Scientists speculate it could be one of the worst leaks ever
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... e-disaster

Nord Stream Gas Explosions May Have Caused Greater Ecological Damage Than Expected
https://www.forbes.com/sites/heatherfar ... 40fa455291

Maybe the next investigation will reveal ISIS was really behind it!

[Harvey]

Extraordinary claims etc.

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary attention.

Indian navy is currently testing or retro-fitting the hardware for its ships. A TSG has been attached to a waste methane powered sub-station in London for more than a year, allowing the generator to over-run its methane usage allowance by more than 500%, the maximum allowable, simply because it has zero emissions. Pay attention.

[Belligerent Savant]

Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX

The mask behind “climate activism” has come off.

Dr. Bill McGuire, a [retired] professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at the University College of London posted here on X yesterday that the only way to “...avoid catastrophic climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.”

...


...

@MillerBurgers

Every single thing about the #ClimateCult is anti-human.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1789698749167817093

[Belligerent Savant]

.
While I'm here, a question for all those that fully subscribe to 'fossil fuels' as an apt descriptor for the most of the gas/oil/hydrocarbons on Earth:

Before I get to my question, and as proper framing, see this statement from Space.com:

Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

https://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-ea ... as%20known.

Clearly, there are no 'fossils' or evidence of historical plant life on Titan. As such, it appears that natural gas/oil/hydrocarbons can indeed be generated without fossils or plant-based decay.

Why can't the same [a form of abiotic oil] occur on Earth?

More on abiotic oil here (and elsewhere):
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12530&start=45#p710513

[DrEvil]

"civilian populations "
I hesitate to make the correction since you are probably well aware of this:

The US military’s carbon bootprint is enormous. Like corporate supply chains, it relies upon an extensive global network of container ships, trucks and cargo planes to supply its operations with everything from bombs to humanitarian aid and hydrocarbon fuels. Our new study calculated the contribution of this vast infrastructure to climate change.

Greenhouse gas emission accounting usually focuses on how much energy and fuel civilians use. But recent work, including our own, shows that the US military is one of the largest polluters in history, consuming more liquid fuels and emitting more climate-changing gases than most medium-sized countries. If the US military were a country, its fuel usage alone would make it the 47th largest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, sitting between Peru and Portugal.

In 2017, the US military bought about 269,230 barrels of oil a day and emitted more than 25,000 kilotonnes of carbon dioxide by burning those fuels. The US Air Force purchased US$4.9 billion worth of fuel, and the navy US$2.8 billion, followed by the army at US$947m and the Marines at US$36m.

and most likely agree that let's eliminate the US military, then the Chinese, then the Russian, and see how things go...

I'm aware. Global military emissions are about 5.5% (uncertainty range 3.3-7%) of the pie (according to this: https://www.sgr.org.uk/resources/how-bi ... -emissions ), which leaves 94.5% that's not. It's a problem, but not the problem. I doubt your average Palestinian or Ukrainian are worried about the emissions of the planes and tanks and missiles bombing them to shit.

[DrEvil]

.
While I'm here, a question for all those that fully subscribe to 'fossil fuels' as an apt descriptor for the most of the gas/oil/hydrocarbons on Earth:

Before I get to my question, and as proper framing, see this statement from Space.com:

Saturn's smoggy moon Titan has hundreds of times more natural gas and other liquid hydrocarbons than all the known oil and natural gas reserves on Earth, scientists said today. The hydrocarbons rain from the sky on the miserable moon, collecting in vast deposits that form lakes and dunes.

https://www.space.com/4968-titan-oil-ea ... as%20known.

Clearly, there are no 'fossils' or evidence of historical plant life on Titan. As such, it appears that natural gas/oil/hydrocarbons can indeed be generated without fossils or plant-based decay.

Why can't the same [a form of abiotic oil] occur on Earth?

More on abiotic oil here (and elsewhere):
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=12530&start=45#p710513

And? Does it matter how exactly it is created? Oil and gas wells run dry either way, and the emissions are the same.

[DrEvil]

Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX

The mask behind “climate activism” has come off.

Dr. Bill McGuire, a [retired] professor of Geophysical & Climate Hazards at the University College of London posted here on X yesterday that the only way to “...avoid catastrophic climate breakdown, is the culling of the human population by a pandemic with a very high fatality rate.”

...


...

@MillerBurgers

Every single thing about the #ClimateCult is anti-human.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1789698749167817093

Here's his response to the reactions:

SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF PEOPLE CAN'T READ.

I SAID 'THE ONLY WAY I SEE EMISSIONS FALLING AS FAST AS THEY NEED TO...'

I DID NOT SAY 'WE NEED A PANDEMIC..'

FFS DON'T READ THINGS INTO A STATEMENT THAT AREN'T THERE

I COULD HAVE SAID SOCIETY-BUSTING ASTEROID IMPACT INSTEAD OF PANDEMIC

https://twitter.com/ProfBillMcGuire/sta ... 4585688100

Sounds a lot like the same kind of bullshit that came out of the whole "lockdown equivalent reductions in CO2", which turned into "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO DO CLIMATE LOCKDOWNS!" by illiterate idiots.

And yes, I know you're going to say I'm being naive or indoctrinated or whatever, and to that I say poppycock! Or at least that I don't immediately assume the worst about everyone. Maybe that does make me naive, but I honestly can't imagine going through life with that kind of mindset. It sounds so fucking miserable.

[DrEvil]

Extraordinary claims etc.

Extraordinary evidence requires extraordinary attention.

Indian navy is currently testing or retro-fitting the hardware for its ships. A TSG has been attached to a waste methane powered sub-station in London for more than a year, allowing the generator to over-run its methane usage allowance by more than 500%, the maximum allowable, simply because it has zero emissions. Pay attention.

Any chance you have any links? A quick google search didn't turn up anything.