'EcoFascism' and related Acts of Criminality.

[Belligerent Savant]

But I have two caveats. First, we can no longer trust "public" anything in the USA as long as our federal government is almost wholly captured by powerful oligiopolies (cartels), as it is today. This is very sad for me to admit, but frankly, I currently have no choice. The traditional "revolving doors" are now more like wind tunnels filled with cash.

Second, climate scientists are indeed "the enemy" if they dare question the inviolable "scientific" postulate that humans will definitely ruin everything on Earth for humans if Net Zero is not achieved before 20XX. Scientists who question this sanctified dogma risk the exact same infinite scorn and ex-communication that scientists who question vaccine lockdowns or mandates were and still are treated to. And questioning any of these Holy Precepts in any way doesn't just make these scientists terrible scientists. It's makes them terrible people intent on spreading the virus of disinformation who must be defiled, vilified, and censored at all costs.

All I am saying is that this doesn't make for a very nuanced scientific discussion in which new data can be judged impartially. As with anything Big Pharma manages to market as a vaccine, The Science (TM) has already long ossified into religious dogma.

For example, if you point out the fact that temperatures are in fact not rising as a fast over the last few years as 90%+ of models predicted, instead of all of us being somewhat happy about what is objectively at least not as bad as predicted news, this data brings shrieks of "misleading disinformation" and/or the goalposts are changed to "climate volatility" rather than to strict global warming. This reminds me too much of the way medical authorities decided to suddenly write natural immunity out of medicine just to encourage mRNA uptake. The vast majority of scientists and almost all "leading experts" simply don't care how much conflicting data they ignore or how much biased data they generate if this is for a good cause (and helpful to their career prospects).

Co-sign the above.

Models are flawed (often inaccurate) mechanisms/predictors and -- both in climate science and in health science -- have led to unwarranted alarm and disastrous policies (or the promotion of policies that would be disastrous for average humans everywhere).

To reiterate my thinking at the moment (which may later be amended):

There is no imminent climate catastrophe; whatever fluctuations to weather patterns that may be observed now and in the years to follow are largely cyclical, contributed to a certain degree by human activities (but overwhelmingly, whatever may be attributed to human causes are due principally to corporate/industry/elite-level human activities rather than everyday human activities), and most importantly, will not be curbed by whatever is being proposed by these deeply-funded entities clamoring for 'net zero' (or anything in proximity to such egregiously harmful proposed measures).

Adjustments should be made, as already mentioned, to improve pollution issues, particularly in zones where pollution issues are far more rampant (Asian nations, densely populated urban areas, etc). Preservation of nature and farmland -- for farmers, not for fucking Bill Gates to purchase and create scarcity of whole foods-- should be priorities. Along with the 'hybrid' approach to energy usage touched on in my prior comment.

Current systems are deeply compromised, perhaps irrevocably, at least with respect to enacting sound policies that truly benefit the majority.

Best we can hope for is localized community-based improvements, barring systemic overhauls.

[Gnomad]

Belligerent Savant, the source you gave says as the very first paragraph:
https://www.carbonbrief.org/guest-post- ... d-in-2022/

The end of the northern-hemisphere summer brings to a close the Greenland ice sheet melt season and with it confirmation that 2022 was the 26th year in a row where Greenland lost ice overall.

Nonetheless, taking into account surface melting, breaking off of icebergs and frictional effects under glaciers, the Greenland ice sheet lost 84Gt of ice over the 12 months from September 2021 to August 2022.

Greenland last saw an annual net gain of ice in 1996.

From 1 April 2002 to 31 August 2021, the period common to both datasets, the Greenland ice sheet has lost approximately 4,500Gt of ice. This is equivalent to 13mm of global average sea level rise. For context, a recent study estimated that climate change to date means that Greenland is already committed to “at least 274mm” of future sea level rise.

What do you want to say with this?

And the second source also says net loss: https://sciencenordic.com/climate-chang ... 17/1450063

For the 2016-17 SMB year, which ended on 30th August, the ice sheet had gained 544bn tonnes of ice, compared to an average for 1981-2010 of 368bn tonnes.

(Note, the SMB doesn’t take into account the breaking off, or “calving” of icebergs from the ice sheet’s edge, which we’ll come to later. Calving losses have averaged around 500bn tonnes of ice per year this century. This means the ice sheet has been losing mass overall across recent years.)

So, what has contributed to the relatively high SMB this year?

The main culprit was Hurricane Nicole, one of the longest-lived named Atlantic storms of last year. Hurricane Nicole grazed (officially, it did not “make landfall”) the island of Bermuda as a category 3 storm in October, causing widespread damage and knocking out power to most homes and businesses.

It then veered northwards through the Atlantic Ocean, morphing into “Post-Tropical Cyclone Nicole” and then becoming a “vigorous extratropical storm” as it moved from the tropics into the cold North Atlantic.

You can see the path that the storm tracked in the image above.

In a similar way to Hurricane Harvey, Nicole then got lodged over eastern Greenland for some days. The storm dumped heavy rain and snow on Greenland – hitting record totals of precipitation in the main east coast town of Tasiilaq.

You can see the effect this had on the SMB in the earlier charts – note the peaks in October on both the daily and cumulative graphs.

The rest of the winter was then fairly average in terms of the amount of snow that fell. Indeed, parts of north western Greenland had less snow than usual – as indicated by the red shading in the accumulated SMB anomaly (left-hand) map below. The right-hand map shows the total change in ice mass over Greenland between June 2006 and January 2017.

They are both only saying that local weather conditions have on some years caused more snowfall in the middle, but the total ice mass has still continually fallen every year? So both of your sources agree that Greenland has lost total ice mass every year for 26 years in a row now.

To reiterate my thinking at the moment (which may later be amended):

There is no imminent climate catastrophe; whatever fluctuations to weather patterns that may be observed now and in the years to follow are largely cyclical, contributed to a certain degree by human activities (but overwhelmingly, whatever may be attributed to human causes are due principally to corporate/industry/elite-level human activities rather than everyday human activities), and most importantly, will not be curbed by whatever is being proposed by these deeply-funded entities clamoring for 'net zero' (or anything in proximity to such egregiously harmful proposed measures).

Ok then. I guess there is nothing more to say to that.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Yes I'm aware of what both pieces are claiming more broadly -- neither source is aiming to challenge the generally accepted position, but it's interesting that they acknowledge recent accumulation compared to earlier averages.

That aside, I'm not indicating here that the average temps aren't increasing; it appears to be the case. My key questions: are humans as responsible as advertised/claimed for these rises in temperature (and if so, how much of it is due to human enterprise/unchecked capital vs standard everyday human activities?); will this rise -- whatever the duration of this trend -- lead to imminent/near-term calamity as proclaimed by the dominant voices on this issue; and is 'net zero' and/or its variations going to solve for (course-correct) these increases?

My current answers are: 1. not as much as advertised/insisted; 2. No, and 3. No.


To emphasize once more: I've never suggested here to 'do nothing' -- see my last couple postings where a number of proposed actions are presented, though of course others may have additional (better) ideas or actions already taken. The core point, though is: NO 'climate action' should involve erosion or stripping of human rights via mandates, lockdowns, or any sort of monitoring activities implemented coercively ('carbon footprint' trackers, etc), as such policies are ALL BULLSHIT and will NOT solve any climate-related issues, real or not.

[Belligerent Savant]

.
You're welcome to disagree with this author, but what I found more interesting is the CITATIONS he shares to support his position.

https://hseneker.blogspot.com/2012/02/i ... s.html?m=1

Saturday, October 02, 2021
1st Essay of 3: Is Global Warming Real or a Hoax? Yes.

The fact is, there has been global warming, in which CO2 has played a modest but significant role. However, the contribution of human-generated carbon dioxide, indeed carbon dioxide of any kind, to any further warming will necessarily be more modest at most.

Carbon dioxide, as greenhouse gases go, is actually comparatively weak. Water vapor, by far the predominant greenhouse gas, is massively more effective in absorbing infrared radiation (which we experience as warmth) than CO2 (1), and massively more abundant in the troposphere(2), which is the region near the earth’s surface where climate takes place. Other greenhouse gases - methane, ozone, and the like, are even stronger absorbers of infrared but are present in such small amounts that they are of minor significance(3).

The only reason CO2 matters much at all is that its absorptive powers are largely concentrated in a very narrow but important range of about 13.5 to 16.4 microns in the infrared spectrum. It is in a part of that spectrum where most of the earth’s infrared radiation falls, between 7 and 50 microns (see below). At 13.5 to 16.4 microns, it so happens, the earth’s infrared radiation level is quite high relative to other parts of the spectrum and water vapor’s absorptive powers relatively low. That leaves CO2 as the primary absorber in its narrow but important range (4).



The figure above, originally prepared by physicist R. A. Rhodes, sets out in graphical form the results of an elaborate calculation of infrared absorbance. (5) The percentages of absorbency (the grey areas) in the lower set of graphs need to be read in conjunction with the curved lines in the upper graph, which show how much infrared radiation is emitted by sun and earth before atmospheric absorbance takes place. The lower set shows how much of that emission is absorbed. In the two top charts, the higher the curved lines are, the greater the radiance and the greater the energy. (Be aware that that the vertical scales of sun and earth radiation are vastly different from one another.) The lower the curved line, the less radiance and energy. Thus, for example, the CO2 absorbance band around 14.5 microns is obviously significant, while the smaller CO2 band around 4.3 microns is not because there is very little earth radiance in that range for it to catch. The earth emissions graph at the top has several curves in order to show what happens to the theoretical maximum for earth emissions at different temperature levels - as average temperature rises, the curve shifts to the left. The middle, dark blue curve approximates current average earth temperature.

Reflecting what is depicted above, recent calculations indicate CO2 presently accounts for about 19% (6) of the 33 degrees Celsius, or 91 degrees Fahrenheit, global warming (Technically known as Radiative Forcing or RF) that prevents the earth from freezing over entirely. That has been a good thing.

However, as can be seen above, that narrow band is now very near saturation at present concentrations of CO2, meaning nearly all of the earth’s radiation in that range is being absorbed, mostly by CO2 and to some extent by what water vapor does absorb in this range. There is little left for any additional increases in atmospheric CO2 to absorb (7). The observed relationship between actual CO2 levels and actual RF reflect these facts, as well as other factors, including downwelling radiation from the stratosphere. Eventually, equilibrium is reached.

It is well known to scientists that the correlation between CO2 levels and RF to date is not, as many appear to assume, a linear correlation, in which each X increase in CO2 would produce the same Y increase in RF. Instead, the relationship is logarithmic.(8) That means each additional X increase of CO2 contributes a successively smaller amount of additional RF than the one before. The logarithmic curve can be calculated mathematically.(9) Mathematically, doubling total CO2, not merely the human-generated portion, from current levels (which is not now in prospect in either human or even geological terms) would theoretically increase CO2 contribution to RF by about 11.4 %; tripling, about 19.5%. In terms of degrees, the doubling implies a 1.7 degree Celsius increase, tripling about 2.0. Observed RF till now closely follows the theoretical curve (and also reflects downwelling of radiation from warming in the stratosphere and above and any other factors at work) (See citations 1-5 in the text above). Average of the annual increases in CO2 concentration in the period 2020-2021 is about 2.32 ppm;(10) a doubling at that rate would take about 184 years, a tripling about 368. Beyond that, the rate of increase continues to dwindle toward the infinitesimal.

More practically, in the period ahead, through 2050, this logarithmic relationship would produce an increase in RF of about 0.375 degrees Celsius.

It happens that the maximum additional global warming the IPCC considers acceptable is preferably 1.5 degrees but in any case less than 2.0 degrees Celsius from an average of the period 1870-1900, and reckons about 0.87 degrees have already occurred, which is about 0.63 degrees short of the preferred 1.5 degrees.(11) Mathematically, if the world takes absolutely no steps to reduce CO2 emissions snd their calculable rise, global warming from that base period will add perhaps 1.25 degrees from that 1850-1900 base period. If the world adopts the extremely costly and draconian measures the IPCC and others are urging in order to “save the planet,” then global warming, anthropogenic or otherwise, will add perhaps 1.25 degrees, but the draconian measures could then be credited with “saving” the planet. Not being privy to the deliberations of those doing the urging, I will leave it to the reader to consider whether their choice is coincidence.

The truth is, there is much more to global warming than human-caused emissions, CO2 included. Since the start of the industrial revolution, carbon dioxide is widely estimated to have risen from 280 ppm to the current 400 ppm-plus. That looks like a lot, and was added over a mere 170 years or so. But before that we had global warming for more than 10,000 years, at least since the end of the last Ice Age (albeit with some fluctuations), and there is evidence temperatures were actually somewhat warmer 9,000 years ago and again 4,500 to 8,000 years ago than they are today(11). Whatever the primary cause of that warming, it was not CO2. Atmospheric CO2 during those 10,000 years (and in previous ice-age cycles) was in the range of about 180 to 280 ppm,(12) much of the time below the preindustrial level of 280 ppm, though the gradual increase in CO2 during that period certainly contributed. Nor was it human activity. It was not all those power plants and factories and SUVs being operated by Stone Age cavemen while chipping arrowheads out of bits of flint either. Whatever the cause was, it melted the mile-thick glaciers that in North America once extended south to Long Island and parts of New York City (13) into virtually complete disappearance (except for a few mountain remnants). That's one big greenhouse effect! If we are still having global warming - and I suppose we could presume we are, given this more than 10,000 year history - it seems highly likely that whatever it is, it would still be the overwhelmingly primary cause of continued warming. Perhaps we should be finding out what that cause (or set of causes) is, rather than worrying about CO2.

Yet even that trend-continuation today needs to be proved. Evidence is that the Medieval Warm Period centered on the 1200s was somewhat warmer than we are now(14), and climate was colder in the Little Ice Age culminating in the 1600s than it is now(15). (Whether the earlier Roman Warm Period around the time of Christ was as warm or was actually warmer than present is less clear.) So we are within the geologically recent range of normal up-and-down fluctuations without human greenhouse contributions that could be significant, or even measurable.

The idea that we should be spending trillions of dollars and hamstringing the economy of the entire world to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is beyond ludicrous in light of the facts above; it is insane. Furthermore, it sucks attention and resources from seeking the other sources of warming and from coping with - or taking advantage of - climate change and its effects in realistic ways.

The true motivation underlying the global warming movement is almost certainly ideological and political in nature, with a growing helping of greed now that many billions of dollars are being steered toward “controlling” global warming, and I predict that Anthropogenic Global Warming, as currently presented, will go down in history as the greatest fraud of all time. It makes Ponzi and Madoff look like pikers by comparison.


Many principal advocates, including many whose job description is “scientist,” arguing for fighting human-caused global warming have been demonstrably disingenuous[(16) and now you can see why. Those who knowingly have done this have proved they should not be trusted.

CITATIONS

(1) Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/ See especially Figure 1, reproduced above, which sets out graphically the comparative infrared absorption of relevant greenhouse gases.

(2) Fundamentals of Physical Geography, 2nd Edition

by Micheal Pidwirney Concentration varies slightly with the growing season in the northern hemisphere. HYPERLINK http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/7a.html Water vapor varies from 0% in places like the Altacama desert in Chile to as much as 4% in equatorial ocean regions, and should easily average at least 1% worldwide. In that case, it would be 25 times more abundant than CO2. If (as seems reasonable) the global average is more like 2%, it would be 50 times more abundant.

(3) Ibid.

(4) Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/

(5) Absorption coefficient of carbon dioxide across atmospheric troposphere layer Peng-Sheng Wei,∗. et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6174548/ The authors work with satellite data (which necessarily incorporate absorption and other characteristics from the upper atmosphere as well as the troposphere) and other resources to calculate an estimate of what is happening in the troposphere alone.

(6) Journal of geophysical Research: Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect Gavin A. Schmidt, et al. https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 10JD014287 See Table 1 and related text. The key figure for this discussion is the amount of absorption attributed to CO2 under all-sky conditions in the presence of other infrared absorbers, because those are the conditions that exist in reality. The others exist as perhaps-useful benchmarks for research. See text for details. The CO2 absorption is often reported as 25%, but that does not take into account absorption by H2O in the same ranges. Radiation absorbed by H2O obviously is no longer available to absorption by CO2 (and vice versa), reducing the effective absorption level of CO2.

(7) For another calculation of infrared absorption in the troposphere, Saturation of the Infrared Absorption by carbon dioxide in the Atmosphere International Journal of. Modern Physics Dieter Schildknecht. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2004.00708.pdf See Tables 1 through 7 and related figures and text. In particular, Tables 4 and 6 suggest absorption by CO2 Is somewhere between 80% (if you assume earth’s average relative humidity near the surface is 0%, which of course it is not) and 90% (if you assume average relative humidity is 85%). Note especially Fig. 3, which depicts the dramatic effect of adding absorption by H2O to that of CO2.

(8) Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres Why logarithmic? A note on the dependence of radiative forcing on gas concentration Huang and Shahabadi https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com ... 14JD022466 - et al. Not only CO2 RF is logarithmic.

(9) https://www.rapidtables.com/calc/math/L ... lator.html Use this logarithmic calculator to find the logs of the starting and ending numbers, and divide the difference between them by the starting log. The result is the percentage amount of the ending figure (in decimal form) compared to the beginning figure. (For simplicity, calculate using the standard or "natural" log to the base 10.)

(10) Annual Mean Growth Rate for Mauna Loa (of CO2) https://gml.noaa.gov/ccgg/trends/gr.html. Also, Mauna Loa Observatory https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

(11) IPCC 2017 report, Ch. 1. https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... ow_Res.pdf - See the executive summary, et al. For easy quick reference, see FAQ on p. 79: FAQ 1.1: Why are we Talking about 1.5°C?

(11) Encyclopedia Britannica - Holocene Environment and Biota, et al. https://www.britannica.com/science/Holo ... -and-biota for early holocene. See also History of Earth’s Climate, Ch. 7, Brett Hansen http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm The citation here is of the English translation, which contains minor grammatical errors that do not materially affect content.

(12) https://courses.washington.edu/pcc588/r ... w-Na00.pdf

(13). The Narrows Flood – Post-Woodfordian Meltwater Breach of the Narrows Channel, NYC Charles Merguerian https://www.geo.sunysb.edu/lig/Conferen ... ian-03.pdf p. 2, et al.

(14) Britannica, same section as citation (11) https://www.britannica.com/science/Holo ... -and-biota. For historical period: Roman and Medieval Warm Periods also History of Earth’s Climate, Ch. 7, Brett Hansen http://www.dandebat.dk/eng-klima7.htm

(15) Encyclopedia Britannica

https://www.britannica.com/science/Little-Ice-Age

(16) [10] Wikileaks: Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009

HYPERLINK

"http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_emails,_data,_models,_1996-2009" http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Climatic_Rese ... _1996-2009.

See also HYPERLINK "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1246661/New-scandal-Climate-Gate-scientists-accused-hiding-data-global-warming-sceptics.html"

HYPERLINK http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ptics.html and

HYPERLINK "http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704075604575356611173414140.html" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142 ... 14140.html and, more diplomatically: HYPERLINK "http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html" http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/science/01tier.html. Et al.

The last grouping of links (from citation 16 - onward) are quite interesting, indeed. The WSJ and NYTimes pieces are behind paywalls; can't download the zip from Wikileaks from this computer at the moment, but the Daily Mail article is reproduced below.

WikiLeaks

Climatic Research Unit emails, data, models, 1996-2009
Release date
November 21, 2009
Summary

This archive presents over 60MB of emails, documents, code and models from the Climatic Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, written between 1996 and 2009.

The CRU has told the BBC that the files were obtained by a hacker 3-4 days ago (at the time of this submission).

This archive includes unreleased global temperature analysis computer source code that has been the subject of Freedom of Information Act requests.

The archive appears to be a collection of information put together by the CRU prior to a FoI redaction process.

From the Daily Mail:

Scientists broke the law by hiding climate change data: But legal loophole means they won't be prosecuted

By DAVID DERBYSHIRE FOR MAIL ONLINE
UPDATED: 18:21 EST, 28 January 2010

Scientist at the heart of the 'Climategate' email scandal broke the law when they refused to give raw data to the public, the privacy watchdog has ruled.

The Information Commissioner's office said University of East Anglia researchers breached the Freedom of Information Act when handling requests from climate change sceptics.

But the scientists will escape prosecution because the offences took place more than six months ago.

The revelation comes after a string of embarrassing blunders and gaffes for climate scientists and will fuel concerns that key researchers are too secretive and too arrogant.

It will pile pressure on the director of the university's climate change unit, Professor Phil Jones, who has stood aside while an investigation is carried out, and make it harder for him to return.

The ruling followed a complaint from retired engineer David Holland, 66, whose Freedom of Information-requests were ignored.

Last night Mr Holland welcomed the watchdog's decision but said it was disappointing the researchers would not be prosecuted.

'All we are trying to do is make the scientists follow their own professional rules by being open, transparent and honest,' he said. 'We are not trying to show that human beings don't affect the climate, but to show that the science is not settled.'

The Climategate row broke in November when hundreds of stolen emails from the world-renowned Climate Research Unit in Norwich were posted online.

The emails appeared to show researchers discussing how to manipulate historical temperature data and dodge requests under the Freedom of Information Act.



One request came in 2008 from Mr Holland, a grandfather from Northampton and an engineering graduate. He was seeking evidence that scientists had cherry-picked research when preparing the previous year's UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report.

After the request was received, a message from one academic to another on May 28, 2008, said: 'Oh MAN! Will this c**p never end?' In other emails the researchers complained that the unit was being bombarded with FOI requests from sceptics. And in another, researchers appeared to be encouraging each other to delete emails.

After the emails were published, Mr Holland complained to the Information Commissioner's Office. An ICO spokesman yesterday confirmed that the UEA breached the Freedom of Information Act.

He added: 'The emails which are now public reveal that Mr Holland's requests under the Freedom of Information Act were not dealt with as they should have been under the legislation.'

Climate change sceptics welcomed the ruling and called for the Climategate inquiry to be made public. Lord Lawson, head of the Global Warming Policy Foundation, said it should also investigate whether the CRU denied opportunities to scientists trying to publish dissenting views.

Last week, the IPCC was forced to apologise after wrongly claiming the Himalayan glaciers could vanish within 25 years. Critics have also accused it of exaggerating the risk of tropical storms and hurricanes.

Earlier this week, Britain's chief scientific advisor, Professor John Beddington, called on climate scientists to be more honest about the uncertainties of global warming.

A shame Wikileaks is no more, eh? One of the many reasons Assange was removed.

[DrEvil]

The Daily Heil? A world renowned authority on everything climate change. No wait, the opposite of that. If you see the Daily Mail saying something about climate change it's almost certain the opposite is true. They're complete shit (not just on climate change, everything. They used to be straight-up fascists, praising Hitler and Mosley. Can't say they've improved much since).

The East Anglia emails was old news over a decade ago when the Daily Mail bullshit above was comprehensively debunked, over and over and over again. Cherry-picking out of context quotes from work emails don't make a conspiracy.

There were eight different investigations into the leaked emails and their contents, and all of them cleared the scientists. None of them found any evidence they fudged the numbers and plenty of evidence the deniers were misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was actually being said (as usual).

[Gnomad]

https://inews.co.uk/news/environment/br ... id-2104102

Britain uses Brexit freedoms to continue use of bee-killing neonicotinoid pesticide banned in the EU

Ministers have used their Brexit freedoms to approve the use of a banned bee-killing pesticide just days after the European Union’s highest court blocked its deployment on the continent.

Defra has re-authorised the emergency use of thiamethoxam, a type of neonicotinoid, known to be lethal to bees, wasps and other pollinators.

The move comes only a month after Therese Coffey, the Environment Secretary, committed the UK to halving the impact of pesticides on the environment and despite the Government’s own expert panel recommending against the move.

[Belligerent Savant]

The Daily Heil? A world renowned authority on everything climate change. No wait, the opposite of that. If you see the Daily Mail saying something about climate change it's almost certain the opposite is true. They're complete shit (not just on climate change, everything. They used to be straight-up fascists, praising Hitler and Mosley. Can't say they've improved much since).

The East Anglia emails was old news over a decade ago when the Daily Mail bullshit above was comprehensively debunked, over and over and over again. Cherry-picking out of context quotes from work emails don't make a conspiracy.

There were eight different investigations into the leaked emails and their contents, and all of them cleared the scientists. None of them found any evidence they fudged the numbers and plenty of evidence the deniers were misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was actually being said (as usual).

Of course. Nothing to see here. ‘Trust the Science’ and all that. The ‘investigation’ was surely thorough and objective.
Except The Daily Mail was not the sole outlet reporting on it. There are numerous articles provided on the Wikileaks findings but they surely won’t be vetted here because one of those links was The (easily trashable) Daily Mail.

Case closed! Another ruse solved, Watson!

(While wholly ignoring the numerous other links and/or points raised in the piece itself)

Edit: I managed to extract content from the WSJ piece linked in my prior posting.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 1173414140

[Belligerent Savant]

.
Edit -

On second thought, there's minimal utility in sharing this here -- removed.

[drstrangelove]

.
And many employees of these Pharma/Life Sciences orgs often have minimal, if any, visibility into the extent of any wrongdoing, due in large part to the compartmentalization of info (military style) often employed in many white-collar corporate entities. Which means that the majority of employees, regardless of role, can be perfectly earnest and ethical in their day-to-day duties, and believe the work they're doing is "good work", but it may have little bearing on what's going on at other levels or what the ultimate objectives are..

The compartmentalisation of communication is key!


^ Adam Weishaupt's diagram of organisational compartmentalisation drawn up in the 18th century. Then suddenly France sneezes and all of Europe catches revolutionary fever.

Henry Kissinger wrote his doctoral thesis on the Austrian congresses presided over by scions of Illuminati families: A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace 1812-1822. His ivy league audition tape. Guess where Kissinger was born? Bavaria, Germany!

The legacy of the Illuminati is alive and well. I need to get back to my roots. Been swept up in too much of this contemporary shit.

[Gnomad]

https://www.reuters.com/article/factche ... SL1N2S112H

As a result of more ancient climate data becoming available, Mann published an updated hockey stick graph on Sept. 28, 2021 (here https://www.pnas.org/content/118/39/e21 ... gures-data ).

The new graph confirms the reliability of the original, experts told Reuters.

“The stick head has grown taller as we have continued to warm – as predicted – for the last 22 years,” said Dr Robin Lamboll, Research Associate in Climate Science and Policy, Imperial College London.

Lamboll added: “The different ways to estimate historic climates have become more numerous, but all with broadly the same message, and so the conclusions of the original graph have become only more solid since 1999.”

As Mann outlined in a peer-reviewed article accompanying the 2021 version (here https://www.pnas.org/content/118/39/e2112797118 ), the updated, longer reconstruction further strengthens the argument that Earth’s recent warming is a historical anomaly.

Only man-made climate change could explain the “unprecedented warming trend” in studies using climate models, he wrote, citing the Fifth Assessment Report of the IPCC, published in 2013 (here). https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads ... _FINAL.pdf

In addition to the “hockey stick,” several independent studies and climate scientists attribute the rise in global temperatures largely to man-made climate change (here). https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/pub ... happening/

VERDICT

False. The “hockey stick” graph is not false evidence of man-made climate change. It shows temperatures rapidly rising since the 20th century. Multiple studies and independent climate scientists support the findings depicted.

Graphs from https://www.imperial.ac.uk/grantham/pub ... happening/
Not gonna paste anything, it can be read at the link nicely.





But do go on and grab at decades old strawmen. At least it is entertaining, if useless.

I do understand it is a bit difficult to discuss things, if you equate taxpayer funded public science made by thousands of independent researchers from universities with "science" made by greedy Pfizer or Big Oil. Or if you give your feelings more weight than hard data collected over a period of over a hundred years, by people of various nationalities all over the world.

Perspective matters.

[Gnomad]

https://electrek.co/2023/01/26/new-york ... -us-first/

New York City will replace its largest fossil fuel plant with wind power, in a US first

New York City’s largest fossil-fuel plant, which powers 20% of the city, will be replaced with offshore wind power.

Ravenswood Generating Station is the New York City fossil fuel plant that will become an offshore wind hub. It’s a 2,480-megawatt (MW) power plant in Long Island City, Queens, across from Roosevelt Island, and it’s the Big Apple’s largest power plant.

It will also become an offshore wind operations and maintenance hub that will support the just transition of the existing fossil fuel plant workforce, and drive economic investment into a historically underserved community.

Rise Light & Power states that the project will, with training programs and job opportunities, justly transition and upskill Ravenswood’s current Local 1-2 UWUA union workers.

US congresswoman Nydia Velázquez (NY-7) said:

America’s first renewable repowering of a fossil-fuel burning plant can happen right here in Long Island City, Queens, home to the city’s largest power generating facility. This project would greatly advance our state’s climate goals and be a win for environmental justice communities living nearby.

I believe that the repowering of the Ravenswood Generating Station can serve as a model for the rest of the country as we work to cut our dependence on fossil fuels while also providing a just transition for residents and workers.

Ditching fossil fuels is also going to improve the air quality in Western Queens, which has a higher asthma rate. In fact, it’s known as “Asthma Alley,” so unsurprisingly, this impactful change has strong community support.

Also -
https://www.straitstimes.com/world/14-t ... first-time

NEW YORK – For the first time, the world invested as much money in replacing fossil fuels as it spent on producing oil, gas and coal, according to an analysis from BloombergNEF (BNEF).

Global investments in the clean energy transition hit US$1.1 trillion (S$1.4 trillion) in 2022, roughly equal to the amount invested in fossil fuel production, according to the research firm’s Energy Transition Investment Trends 2023 report. Never before has the amount spent on switching to renewable power, electric cars and new energy sources like hydrogen topped US$1 trillion.

While the amount represents a 31 per cent jump from 2021, it is still just a fraction of what is needed to slash greenhouse gas emissions and fight global warming. BNEF estimates annual investments in the transition must triple for the rest of this decade to give the world a shot at reaching net-zero emissions by 2050.

Solar and wind power accounted for the biggest chunk of 2022 investments, reaching US$495 billion, a 17 per cent hike from the previous year. But electric vehicles were close behind with US$466 billion, and the amount invested in them worldwide is growing far faster, at 54 per cent.

Nearly half of all global energy transition investments – US$546 billion – were in China, while the United States came in second at US$141 billion. (Had BNEF counted the European Union as a single entity, it would have ranked second with US$180 billion.)

The US$1.1 trillion covers money invested in deploying clean energy technologies, according to BNEF. It does not include US$274 billion spent worldwide last year on expanding and strengthening power grids, US$79 billion invested in clean energy supply chains and manufacturing, or US$119 billion in equity financing raised by clean tech companies. Added together, the amount invested in the transition rises to about US$1.6 trillion.

[DrEvil]

The Daily Heil? A world renowned authority on everything climate change. No wait, the opposite of that. If you see the Daily Mail saying something about climate change it's almost certain the opposite is true. They're complete shit (not just on climate change, everything. They used to be straight-up fascists, praising Hitler and Mosley. Can't say they've improved much since).

The East Anglia emails was old news over a decade ago when the Daily Mail bullshit above was comprehensively debunked, over and over and over again. Cherry-picking out of context quotes from work emails don't make a conspiracy.

There were eight different investigations into the leaked emails and their contents, and all of them cleared the scientists. None of them found any evidence they fudged the numbers and plenty of evidence the deniers were misrepresenting or misunderstanding what was actually being said (as usual).

Of course. Nothing to see here. ‘Trust the Science’ and all that. The ‘investigation’ was surely thorough and objective.
Except The Daily Mail was not the sole outlet reporting on it. There are numerous articles provided on the Wikileaks findings but they surely won’t be vetted here because one of those links was The (easily trashable) Daily Mail.

Case closed! Another ruse solved, Watson!

(While wholly ignoring the numerous other links and/or points raised in the piece itself)

Edit: I managed to extract content from the WSJ piece linked in my prior posting.

The Climategate Whitewash Continues
Global warming alarmists claim vindication after last year's data manipulation scandal. Don't believe the 'independent' reviews.

Last November there was a world-wide outcry when a trove of emails were released suggesting some of the world's leading climate scientists engaged in professional misconduct, data manipulation and jiggering of both the scientific literature and climatic data to paint what scientist Keith Briffa called "a nice, tidy story" of climate history. The scandal became known as Climategate.

Now a supposedly independent review of the evidence says, in effect, "nothing to see here." Last week "The Independent Climate Change E-mails Review," commissioned and paid for by the University of East Anglia, exonerated the University of East Anglia. The review committee was chaired by Sir Muir Russell, former vice chancellor at the University of Glasgow.

Mr. Russell took pains to present his committee, which consisted of four other academics, as independent. He told the Times of London that "Given the nature of the allegations it is right that someone who has no links to either the university or the climate science community looks at the evidence and makes recommendations based on what they find."

No links? One of the panel's four members, Prof. Geoffrey Boulton, was on the faculty of East Anglia's School of Environmental Sciences for 18 years. At the beginning of his tenure, the Climatic Research Unit (CRU)—the source of the Climategate emails—was established in Mr. Boulton's school at East Anglia. Last December, Mr. Boulton signed a petition declaring that the scientists who established the global climate records at East Anglia "adhere to the highest levels of professional integrity."

This purportedly independent review comes on the heels of two others—one by the University of East Anglia itself and the other by Penn State University, both completed in the spring, concerning its own employee, Prof. Michael Mann. Mr. Mann was one of the Climategate principals who proposed a plan, which was clearly laid out in emails whose veracity Mr. Mann has not challenged, to destroy a scientific journal that dared to publish three papers with which he and his East Anglia friends disagreed. These two reviews also saw no evil. For example, Penn State "determined that Dr. Michael E. Mann did not engage in, nor did he participate in, directly or indirectly, any actions that seriously deviated from accepted practices within the academic community."

Readers of both earlier reports need to know that both institutions receive tens of millions in federal global warming research funding (which can be confirmed by perusing the grant histories of Messrs. Jones or Mann, compiled from public sources, that are available online at freerepublic.com). Any admission of substantial scientific misbehavior would likely result in a significant loss of funding.

It's impossible to find anything wrong if you really aren't looking. In a famous email of May 29, 2008, Phil Jones, director of East Anglia's CRU, wrote to Mr. Mann, under the subject line "IPCC & FOI," "Can you delete any emails you may have had with Keith [Briffa] re AR4 [the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report]? Keith will do likewise . . . can you also email Gene [Wahl, an employee of the U.S. Department of Commerce] to do the same . . . We will be getting Caspar [Amman, of the U.S. National Center for Atmospheric Research] to do likewise."

Mr. Jones emailed later that he had "deleted loads of emails" so that anyone who might bring a Freedom of Information Act request would get very little. According to New Scientist writer Fred Pearce, "Russell and his team never asked Jones or his colleagues whether they had actually done this."

The Russell report states that "On the allegation of withholding temperature data, we find that the CRU was not in a position to withhold access to such data." Really? Here's what CRU director Jones wrote to Australian scientist Warrick Hughes in February 2005: "We have 25 years or so invested in the work. Why should I make the data available to you, when your aim is to try and find something wrong with it[?]"

Then there's the problem of interference with peer review in the scientific literature. Here too Mr. Russell could find no wrong: "On the allegations that there was subversion of the peer review or editorial process, we find no evidence to substantiate this."

Really? Mr. Mann claims that temperatures roughly 800 years ago, in what has been referred to as the Medieval Warm Period, were not as warm as those measured recently. This is important because if modern temperatures are not unusual, it casts doubt on the fear that global warming is a serious threat. In 2003, Willie Soon of the Smithsonian Institution and Sallie Baliunas of Harvard published a paper in the journal Climate Research that took exception to Mr. Mann's work, work which also was at variance with a large number of independent studies of paleoclimate. So it would seem the Soon-Baliunas paper was just part of the normal to-and-fro of science.

But Mr. Jones wrote Mr. Mann on March 11, 2003, that "I'll be emailing the journal to tell them I'm having nothing more to do with it until they rid themselves of this troublesome editor," Chris de Freitas of the University of Auckland. Mr. Mann responded to Mr. Jones on the same day: "I think we should stop considering 'Climate Research' as a legitimate peer-reviewed journal. Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues . . . to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal. We would also need to consider what we tell or request our more reasonable colleagues who currently sit on the editorial board."

Mr. Mann ultimately wrote to Mr. Jones on July 11, 2003, that "I think the community should . . . terminate its involvement with this journal at all levels . . . and leave it to wither away into oblivion and disrepute."

Climate Research and several other journals have stopped accepting anything that substantially challenges the received wisdom on global warming perpetuated by the CRU. I have had four perfectly good manuscripts rejected out of hand since the CRU shenanigans, and I'm hardly the only one. Roy Spencer of the University of Alabama, Huntsville, has noted that it's becoming nearly impossible to publish anything on global warming that's nonalarmist in peer-reviewed journals.

Of course, Mr. Russell didn't look to see if the ugly pressure tactics discussed in the Climategate emails had any consequences. That's because they only interviewed CRU people, not the people whom they had trashed.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424 ... 1173414140

The eight different investigations, not the investigation.

But of course, an opinion piece with yet more out of context snippets by a climate change denier in the fucking Wall Street Journal trumps all that.

I notice you haven't responded to my previous lengthy reply to one of your posts (here: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=42029&start=285#p706664 ), the one where you said "none of the zealots in this thread have yet to address them head-on". How about you do the same instead of alternating between "taking a break" and "not wanting to engage in lengthy back and forth arguments" whenever someone points out one of your mistakes? I would in particular like your take on this:

Now Omrani warns against misinterpretations of their results. A reduced temperature rise in the coming years does not mean that global warming has slowed down.

https://phys.org/news/2022-12-multideca ... tions.html

You presented the paper ( https://www.nature.com/articles/s41612-022-00275-1 ) as evidence that the climate change narrative isn't what it seems, but the author very clearly states that's not what the paper is saying at all.

And also your take on the picture of the airport in the Maldives flooding. Haven't heard a word from you about that since I posted it.

Oh, and that science that's supposedly linked in the class notes. Still waiting.

[stickdog99]

The thing is, the temperatures have been rising just as modeled. The last 8 years in row have all been record high, and we have had several "once in a thousand years" anomalous weather events, for example the floods in Germany ( https://www.science.org/content/article ... ts-stunned ), then drying of rivers in Europe and China last year. Same thing with California - first a long drought, then an uncharacteristic spell of very heavy rains leading to flooding.

This is a picture of the actual data that the article you cited linked to:



Now, show me the models that predicted that the highest annual surface temperatures on record would peak in 2017 and then never reach that high for the next 7 years.

As for California, drought and flood has been the rule since California weather started to be carefully recorded. There is evidence this cycle has somewhat worsened in severity over the last 40 years compared to the 40 years before that, but the recent flooding was nothing like the Great Flood of 1862.

[stickdog99]

Furthermore, what do you think caused the even higher temperatures on Earth in recent geological past?



Sure, we can speculate how much was due to this and how much was due to that. But tell me, can anyone really know for sure?

[stickdog99]

As for Greenland's recent "ice loss," the gains are hard data while the losses are computer modeled "ice calving" losses.





Again, I am not saying that we should look at these data and feel free not to conserve. Nor am I saying that fossil fuel companies don't have their own evil agenda as well as their own legion of PR flacks.

I support wholly every attempt to decentralize power generation at to make it as efficient, renewable, and clean as possible!

All I am saying is not all recent data follow the "inevitable, ever-accelerating upward/downward slope toward extinction" Net Zero model that has become quasi-religiously heretical to question over the past 30 years.