Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[Harvey]

Evil,

On the question of CO2 induced heating, digest this paper. Read the very fair and balanced conclusion. I’m not asking you to regurgitate somebody else's thoughts, I’m asking only this: what are your thoughts?

The Influence of IR Absorption and Backscatter Radiation from CO2 on Air Temperature during Heating in a Simulated Earth/Atmosphere Experiment

Conclusion

The results of our study show the near-identical heating curves when we change from air to 100% CO2 or to Argon gas with low CO2 concentration. Nevertheless, we observed absorption of IR radiation in the front chamber. We also observed the increased radiation density in the rear chamber due to the backscatter from CO2. The change in observed backscatter radiation should give us a measurable temperature increase of 2.4 to 4 K by using the Stefan Boltzmann law. But we only observe a very slight temperature increase due to CO2 backscatter. This indicates that heating, due to IR backscatter from CO2, is much less than what is assumed from the Stefan Boltzmann law or from the forcing Equation (1a) and Equation (1b). The near-identical heating curves for all the three gases indicate that the thermal energy transfer is only driven by the temperature of the back wall of the rear chamber. Without extra heating of the walls in the rear chamber, the air temperature cannot increase. These findings might question the fundament of the forcing laws used by the IPCC. Another possibility is that our setup has unexplained heat losses that cancel the effect of the increased backscatter IR and prevent higher temperatures in the rear chamber, but after testing this and finding only slight losses, we do not see that this could be the case.

On climate variability vs timescale: research “meltwater pulse 1B” at the end of the Younger Dryas period and point me to the agreed causal agent.

On the topic of Malcolm Bendall, it’s dismaying to have to point out to anyone that the wikipedia level or equivalent sourcing of information is at best, artful bullshit. It’s doubly dismaying to have to point this out to RI’ers. With any degree of digging, you’ll probably agree, his device is at least one of two things, 1) it uses geometry, ionised water, temperature and pressure to induce plasma to transmute elements, or 2) it is the “cheapest and most effective catalytic converter ever invented.” Either works perfectly well for me.

As you’ve probably quoted yourself, at some point: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”

[Grizzly]

https://chemtrails.substack.com/p/400-f ... dification

400 Farmers vs Weather Modification: YOU STOLE OUR RAIN! BAN THE PLANES! - (Untold History of GeoEngineering)

How we got where we are now. Another suppressed history lesson you've never heard, but need to. A very important lesson in what we are being told is "Climate Change"...

Also see, my other posts about Chemtrials...
oh, that's right you can't unless you refresh the page 34 times....

[Belligerent Savant]

.
An article in 1995, back when this scam was relatively effective.

There remain quite a few -- albeit incrementally dwindling -- that still believe this nonsense.


*Once more I'll repeat: whatever anomalous weather/climate patterns we may be experiencing (if indeed truly anomalous relative to the history of the earth), it is NOT due to ANY 'every day', standard human activities, nor due to human-generated CO2. Certain geo-engineering tactics may well be impacting localized weather patterns, perhaps, but that's a separate topic.

[DrEvil]

It boggles the mind that someone can believe that releasing 37000 million metric tons of CO2 into the atmosphere every year has no effect. I know and you know that humans are fucking up every part of the world we touch, yet somehow, for some nebulous reason (This ad brought to you by EXXON), the atmosphere is completely untouched by our fuckery.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
There are a notable amount of individuals with credentials and white lab coats, captured and incentivized to perpetuate false narratives, that have successfully (along with those behind the scenes funding such campaigns) propagandized many, for years.

Human-generated CO2 may certainly negatively impact pollution and environmental issues -- especially when the output is handled unethically and irresponsibly by corporate entities or countries -- but it does NOT have any significant impact on weather or climate. Such a notion is nonsensical. Or: non-science.

You can continue to subscribe to such canards, as you do. That's your choice.



(The above may or may not fully explain current circumstances but at least in my view is far more plausible than the CO2 embellishments)

And this -

https://manhattan.institute/article/min ... lity-check

Excepts -

... all energy-producing machinery must be fabricated from materials extracted from the earth. No energy system, in short, is actually “renewable,” since all machines require the continual mining and processing of millions of tons of primary materials and the disposal of hardware that inevitably wears out. Compared with hydrocarbons, green machines entail, on average, a 10-fold increase in the quantities of materials extracted and processed to produce the same amount of energy.

This means that any significant expansion of today’s modest level of green energy—currently less than 4% of the country’s total consumption (versus 56% from oil and gas)—will create an unprecedented increase in global mining for needed minerals, radically exacerbate existing environmental and labor challenges in emerging markets (where many mines are located), and dramatically increase U.S. imports and the vulnerability of America’s energy supply chain.

As recently as 1990, the U.S. was the world’s number-one producer of minerals. Today, it is in seventh place. Even though the nation has vast mineral reserves worth trillions of dollars, America is now 100% dependent on imports for some 17 key minerals, and, for another 29, over half of domestic needs are imported.

Among the material realities of green energy:

Building wind turbines and solar panels to generate electricity, as well as batteries to fuel electric vehicles, requires, on average, more than 10 times the quantity of materials, compared with building machines using hydrocarbons to deliver the same amount of energy to society.

A single electric car contains more cobalt than 1,000 smartphone batteries; the blades on a single wind turbine have more plastic than 5 million smartphones; and a solar array that can power one data center uses more glass than 50 million phones.

Replacing hydrocarbons with green machines under current plans—never mind aspirations for far greater expansion—will vastly increase the mining of various critical minerals around the world. For example, a single electric car battery weighing 1,000 pounds requires extracting and processing some 500,000 pounds of materials. Averaged over a battery’s life, each mile of driving an electric car “consumes” five pounds of earth. Using an internal combustion engine consumes about 0.2 pounds of liquids per mile.

Oil, natural gas, and coal are needed to produce the concrete, steel, plastics, and purified minerals used to build green machines. The energy equivalent of 100 barrels of oil is used in the processes to fabricate a single battery that can store the equivalent of one barrel of oil.

By 2050, with current plans, the quantity of worn-out solar panels—much of it nonrecyclable—will constitute double the tonnage of all today’s global plastic waste, along with over 3 million tons per year of unrecyclable plastics from worn-out wind turbine blades. By 2030, more than 10 million tons per year of batteries will become garbage.

[DrEvil]

Problem is solar cycles can't explain the warming observed. The sun's influence is known and accounted for, and it's only responsible for something like +/- 0.1C, and a 1000 year cycle (Eddy) and a 2400 year cycle (Bray, aka Halstatt) sure as heck can't account for this:



Notice anything weird right around where the industrial revolution kicks off?

[PufPuf93]

The only solution to just about every major human problem is population reduction, reduce the human footprint on Earth.

Humanity has a choice as to the manner and timing; looks to me like a select few powerful are making the decisions for their own short term interests and biases.

Amazing that RI works. maybe works anyway.

[Harvey]

Love you man. I mean it. No disrespect.

It's literal Koolaid.

[DrEvil]

Depends how you do it. Give people access to education, free healthcare, family planning and free/cheap kindergarten, coupled with a good safety net, and you're halfway there already.

[Belligerent Savant]

Problem is solar cycles can't explain the warming observed. The sun's influence is known and accounted for, and it's only responsible for something like +/- 0.1C, and a 1000 year cycle (Eddy) and a 2400 year cycle (Bray, aka Halstatt) sure as heck can't account for this:



Notice anything weird right around where the industrial revolution kicks off?

The problem is that the data gathering/criteria for this nonsense chart is deeply flawed. Relying on temperature sensors that violate recommended placement guidelines, faulty statistics, manipulation of data etc (a recurring theme among modern-era 'The Science' Propagandists, across numerous disciplines. And yet a stubborn subset continue to blindly subscribe to these faulty charts without question, relying on 'credentials', status quo dogma and tribalist programming.)

Re: the above image:

Your curve is shamefully flattened. Temperatures were several degrees higher just 2,000 years ago.
nature 2020 (an example among hundreds)


From:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

https://x.com/NiusMarco/status/1938601270903726107

And:

https://pjmedia.com/david-manney/2025/0 ... y-n4940123

Excerpts:

Mann's rise to prominence began with a temperature reconstruction graph published in 1998. It erased historical warming periods such as the Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age in favor of a dramatic 20th-century spike. To the casual observer, it looked like mankind had shoved the planet off a climate cliff.

The media ran with it. The United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) elevated the hockey stick to icon status. Schools taught it. Politicians cited it. Al Gore plastered it in "An Inconvenient Truth," like a gospel.

But critics soon noticed that something wasn’t right. Canadian researchers Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick uncovered glaring flaws in Mann’s methodology, showing that his algorithm could produce a hockey stick shape even when fed with random data. This wasn’t just bad science; it was political theater dressed in lab coats.

From Researcher to Legal Enforcer

Rather than engage in honest debate, Mann chose litigation as his cudgel. In 2012, he sued National Review and CEI after their writers criticized his work and compared how Penn State handled their investigations of Mann after the East Anglia emails leak, and of Penn State’s disgraced football coach, Jerry Sandusky.

This was not a matter of protecting one's reputation from slander. This was a climate scientist declaring war on dissent. And for a while, it worked. The lawsuits dragged on for over ten years. Many media outlets pulled back from covering the criticisms, not out of agreement, but out of fear.

The recent rulings, however, dismantle Mann’s claims. The D.C. court awarded National Review $530,820.21 in legal fees. CEI and Simberg will receive $472,000. These were not sympathy payouts. They were direct rebukes of a man who tried to game the legal system as thoroughly as he gamed climate projections.
...
The implications of this case stretch far beyond Mann’s personal disgrace. For years, the climate industrial complex has leaned heavily on scare graphs and dramatic modeling to demand trillions in global policy changes. But when one of the movement’s most famous architects is caught misrepresenting data and himself, the entire foundation begins to quake.

Organizations such as NASA, GISS, and NOAA have routinely adjusted historical temperature records and used model projections that have consistently overshot reality. Now, people are asking hard questions:

Why do projections from twenty years ago still not match observed warming?
Why are climate models consistently wrong, and why are they still used to justify sweeping regulations?
Why do scientists who challenge these inconsistencies find themselves blacklisted or defunded?

The answer is uncomfortable. For too long, one version of the science was protected by the media, bureaucracy, and legal threats. Not anymore.

[DrEvil]

Problem is solar cycles can't explain the warming observed. The sun's influence is known and accounted for, and it's only responsible for something like +/- 0.1C, and a 1000 year cycle (Eddy) and a 2400 year cycle (Bray, aka Halstatt) sure as heck can't account for this:



Notice anything weird right around where the industrial revolution kicks off?

The problem is that the data gathering/criteria for this nonsense chart is deeply flawed. Relying on temperature sensors that violate recommended placement guidelines, faulty statistics, manipulation of data etc (a recurring theme among modern-era 'The Science' Propagandists, across numerous disciplines. And yet a stubborn subset continue to blindly subscribe to these faulty charts without question, relying on 'credentials', status quo dogma and tribalist programming.)

Re: the above image:

Your curve is shamefully flattened. Temperatures were several degrees higher just 2,000 years ago.
nature 2020 (an example among hundreds)


From:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67281-2

https://x.com/NiusMarco/status/1938601270903726107

IN THE MEDITERRANEAN. Do you not understand the difference between regional variations, such as the medieval warm period and the little ice age, and global temperature?

[Belligerent Savant]

.
That's only a sampling of ONE study. If you dig deeper you will find studies that refer to other regions/timeframes.

But you have no interest in challenging your current position, right?

And the "hockey stick" horseshit graph is deeply flawed non-science, besides.

I will repeat:
The reasons for variances in global temps, to the extent they exist, are not due to human caused factors in any significant sense (putting aside regional manipulation of weather via various geo-engineering).

As such, any (ultimately ineffective at scale and with their own detrimental impacts to the environment in the aggregate) 'green'/'net zero'/'carbon offset'/'social credit'/ESG (etc) initiatives/goals are not only wholly ineffective at their outwardly-claimed aims (though solar and similar alternative energy can be relatively efficient in localized or small-scale implementations), they are also immensely harmful & egregious affronts to the collective.

The silver lining is a growing count of humans are applying discernment and scrutiny on these historical canards, and as such the propagandists are unlikely to succeed (if such measures are enforced) other than in a few urban areas across a number of regions -- for a while at least -- until the charade can no longer be sustained.

The programming and psychological fuckery perpetrated on populations for so long has truly rendered a subset of you into biological versions of faulty AI GPT, complete with inherent bias, 'hallucinations', and an inability to see anything beyond the programming and curated models fed into your memory banks.

[DrEvil]

Then how about Berkeley Earth. They started out as skeptics, funded by among others the Koch brothers, and their goal was to cut through the propaganda from all sides and do the science properly and from scratch. Surprise surprise, they came to the same conclusion everyone else already had, and promptly changed their minds. Here's their temperature graph for the last 170 years:



Feel free to post some of these other studies you refer to.