Abandoning rational discussion on climate change

[DrEvil]

What do you mean 'crush capitalism'?

Perhaps I'm missing something as I'm just breezing through the last couple comments here, but:

You DO realize that 'netzero', ESG, 'carbon credits', solar/wind/EV tech, et al. IS, indeed, all EXCEEDINGLY Capitalist (at least in outcome for the ones driving this 'climate alarm' industry), yes?
As in: all those at the top (and even many of those in the mid-range sections) of the pyramid promoting 'climate alarm' are, indeed, RAKING IMMENSE profits.

Please tell me you don't actually believe the primary drivers pushing 'alternative energy' are all doing it primarily because they all care so deeply about the world and its inhabitants...


Oh dear.

It appears some of the earlier programming may have altered minds irrevocably...

What are you talking about? Our current capitalist system and infinite growth is the problem. Incidentally the same kind of fuckers you keep promoting in this thread, the latest example being Net Zero Watch.

[DrEvil]

Nationalize the oil companies and use all that sweet oil money to shift to as much renewable as possible and invest in storage solutions.

Storage solutions? Like what?

Pumped hydro, batteries, flywheels, stacking bricks, molten salt, hot water, whatever lets you store energy for later use. You could have just looked this up for yourself you know, they're not some elusive mythical creature.

Subsidize solar and EVs,

Are these options actually any better for the environment in an overall sense when you include the mining, transportation, and battery energy expenditures?

This is the same nonsense BelSav keeps harping on about: Oh, it's not perfect right now, so it's in fact terrible! Woe be me!

You can electrify all the steps required. They may not be right now, but there's no major obstacles to doing it. Burning oil and coal will always be dirty (not to mention, they require mining and transportation too. You talk as if the oil just magically teleports from beneath the Gulf or the oil sands in Alberta, detours through a magical refinery that is totally clean and very nice, and into your gas tank. And coal too. Poof! There it is, just sitting there for the taking. They definitely don't cut off the tops of entire mountains or anything to get at it). Throw in better recycling and reuse and you're getting there. Old car batteries may not be good enough to run a car, but they can still store energy in your garage for instance.

If you're going to mine, at least mine for the stuff that helps you stop using the worst shit.

carbon tax with progressive rebates

How is this going to work in practice?

Same way they do it in Alaska (those filthy socialists), only with a progressive lowering of the payout the more you earn. For instance. I don't have a white paper if that's what you're asking, I'm just spitballing.

crush capitalism

With whose fist?

Dunno. Can I borrow yours?

By the way, I just wanted to congratulate all of us well-meaning collectivists on our finally managing to convince our entire technocratic establishment of the imminent direness of the climate emergency facing humankind, despite the inexorable efforts of fossil fuel propagandists who continue to spread the exact disinformation and misinformation about this issue that the WEF currently ranks as the single greatest risk facing humanity in the near term. Luckily, now that all elites finally stand 100% with us on this issue (against all odds and certainly in capitalism crushing solidarity), we can doubtlessly trust them to effectively, efficiently, and equitably address this crisis with only our public interest in mind (just as they addressed COVID).

Sounds like you could do with a good round of crushing capitalism too. Remove these fuckers from the equation.

[DrEvil]

The Greenland Ice core data (calibrated against other methods of inferring global temperature) speaks for itself. Most of the last ten thousand years (the Holocene) have been considerably warmer than today. Six or seven thousand year old settlements high in the Canadian mountains, revealed by retreating glaciers, demonstrate that it has been considerably warmer for most of the last ten thousand years than it is today. Look at the swift and violent temperature changes during the Younger Dryas period by comparison to now. Fact is, most of those retreating glaciers were actually created by the 'little ice age' over the last thousand years, the second coldest period since the end of the Younger Dryas. We are still emerging from it.

That's the record for one specific site on Greenland, not the entire world, and I'm almost certain it's based on the GISP2 dataset, which ends in 1855.

If Carbon is the problem, the absorption of infrared radiation by Carbon is long past 'saturation' point, in other words, no matter how much more carbon is added, the warming effect of additional carbon will remain negligible. I accept that methane is a different question. But clearly, the story we are hearing is contestable. There are other, better reasons to transition from carbon, not least, the associated wars.

The idea of CO2 saturation is, let's say, disputed. Here's one fairly detailed explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

On another note, look up Malcolm Bendall's so called 'Thunderstorm Generator'. The data is certainly tantalising. It doubles the efficiency of combustion engines while resulting in almost zero carbon emissions. Using his system, combustion engines produce zero or near zero carbon and typically around 18 to 20 percent oxygen exhaust gas. It appears to be causing transmutation of elements.

It's already being used in a number of countries in everything from methane generators to petroleum and diesel - and the technology is entirely open source. Don't take my word for it, have a look for yourselves.

Would love for this to be real, but I've seen so many of these devices come and go over the years, and they always seem to just quietly disappear after people other than the ones championing them start testing. Bendall also has a somewhat colorful past. Apparently he spent decades taking people's money to find the mother of all oil fields in Tasmania, all based on a vision from God. His exploration license was revoked in 2016 after finding exactly zero oil. I'm cautiously skeptical of his current claims.

[Belligerent Savant]

What do you mean 'crush capitalism'?

Perhaps I'm missing something as I'm just breezing through the last couple comments here, but:

You DO realize that 'netzero', ESG, 'carbon credits', solar/wind/EV tech, et al. IS, indeed, all EXCEEDINGLY Capitalist (at least in outcome for the ones driving this 'climate alarm' industry), yes?
As in: all those at the top (and even many of those in the mid-range sections) of the pyramid promoting 'climate alarm' are, indeed, RAKING IMMENSE profits.

Please tell me you don't actually believe the primary drivers pushing 'alternative energy' are all doing it primarily because they all care so deeply about the world and its inhabitants...


Oh dear.

It appears some of the earlier programming may have altered minds irrevocably...

What are you talking about? Our current capitalist system and infinite growth is the problem. Incidentally the same kind of fuckers you keep promoting in this thread, the latest example being Net Zero Watch.

I'm talking about the FACT that these 'solutions' you blindly subscribe to are managed by those that benefit GREATLY from the capitalist system you desire to be "crushed". (it remains un-answered, stickdog's immediate follow-up query, " 'crushed' by what fist?")

To call this a facile take would be charitable. It's certainly not worthy of further exposition.

...
Steven Miller, MD, PhD
@SageListener

This practice can be aptly described as Orwellian, where language and truth are manipulated to control thought and behavior, heralding the death of common sense and posing a grave threat to society.
...
Another alarming example can be found in the field of science, particularly in climate discussions, where terminologies and their implications shift, sometimes subtly coercing alignment with prevailing ideologies rather than fostering open inquiry. These shifts not only obscure the truth but also undermine the very foundation of informed debate and critical thinking.

https://x.com/annbauerwriter/status/1785377293155651651

[Elvis]

https://www.merchantsofdoubt.org/

Merchants of Doubt

How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming


The U.S. scientific community has long led the world in research on public health, environmental science, and other issues affecting the quality of life. Our scientists have produced landmark studies on the dangers of DDT, tobacco smoke, acid rain, and global warming. But at the same time, a small yet potent subset of this community leads the world in vehement denial of these dangers.

In their new book, Merchants of Doubt, historians Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway explain how a loose–knit group of high-level scientists, with extensive political connections, ran effective campaigns to mislead the public and deny well-established scientific knowledge over four decades. In seven compelling chapters addressing tobacco, acid rain, the ozone hole, global warming, and DDT, Oreskes and Conway roll back the rug on this dark corner of the American scientific community, showing how the ideology of free market fundamentalism, aided by a too-compliant media, has skewed public understanding of some of the most pressing issues of our era.


“A well-documented, pulls-no-punches account of how science works and how political motives can hijack the process by which scientific information is disseminated to the public.”—Kirkus Review

The defenders of oil here are spouting "free market" ideology, not science.

[Elvis]

How about countering the propaganda with truthful discussion instead of just saying "Heritage Foundation" as if that is supposed to end all discussion.

For example, can you tell us more about the great new businesses you imagine will thrive and the bad ones that will die? How do you imagine that the Green New Deal will decentralize power and distribute wealth more fairly?

More critically to me personally, how do you explain our entire Western technocratic elite's total agreement with you about the emergency status of our supposed climate crisis? And how can we ensure that they will not Shock Doctrine us with this crisis as they have done with every other one that they have gotten us well meaning progressives to believe in?

1. Yeah, anything coming out of the Heritage Foundation is heavily skewed to big-business & finance industry interests. Heritage was created to spread "trickle-down" economics, the main thrust of which is to render working people powerless and allow big-money interests to make all of our choices about what kind of society we have. Fuck them.


2. The Green New Deal will decentralize power and distribute wealth more fairly by localizing decisions on infrastructure projects, and financing them with public banks (i.e., not taxes, and the private finance sector seeking easy profits can fuck off.).

The Green New Deal ends unemployment as we know it---where the prevailing economic models use mass unemployment to 'balance the economy"; some types of jobs will go away and be replaced by new & better jobs. The job guarantee sets a wage floor with helps stabilize prices while keeping willing workers employed.

The Green New Deal includes single-payer healthcare, so that all workers are healthy and fit for work. The Green New Deal redesigns the financial sector to serve people, not industry parasites.

The Green New Deal is the only comprehensive, coherent plan to coordinate resource use to accomplish the energy transition---and re-engineer the financial sector---with the least disruption.

Consequently, Americans will be weathier and healthier, and will leave a stronger nation & more resilient economy to future generations.


3. Since when do progressives subscribe to shock doctrine? If the "technocratic elite" (who are they?) supported the Green New Deal, we'd have it. Instead, they are resisting, while the finance sector tries to situation themselves as the leading force. When in reality, 75% of the financial industry---who basically dig holes and fills them in (debt)---could be eliminated, releasing valuable resources equal to perhaps 25% of GDP, and be directed to useful purposes.

[Harvey]

The idea of CO2 saturation is, let's say, disputed. Here's one fairly detailed explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

You can read the relevant papers or repeat the experiment for yourself, rather than googling the available propaganda. It's been duplicated several times and there are several papers, whether one uses the word 'saturated' or not.

Would love for this to be real, but I've seen so many of these devices come and go over the years...

Fortuntely for everyone, we don't have to rely on your internet skillz on this question either. The device is open source. Download the schematics and build one for yourself. Come back to us with your refutation after you've done it.

[DrEvil]

What do you mean 'crush capitalism'?

Perhaps I'm missing something as I'm just breezing through the last couple comments here, but:

You DO realize that 'netzero', ESG, 'carbon credits', solar/wind/EV tech, et al. IS, indeed, all EXCEEDINGLY Capitalist (at least in outcome for the ones driving this 'climate alarm' industry), yes?
As in: all those at the top (and even many of those in the mid-range sections) of the pyramid promoting 'climate alarm' are, indeed, RAKING IMMENSE profits.

Please tell me you don't actually believe the primary drivers pushing 'alternative energy' are all doing it primarily because they all care so deeply about the world and its inhabitants...


Oh dear.

It appears some of the earlier programming may have altered minds irrevocably...

What are you talking about? Our current capitalist system and infinite growth is the problem. Incidentally the same kind of fuckers you keep promoting in this thread, the latest example being Net Zero Watch.

I'm talking about the FACT that these 'solutions' you blindly subscribe to are managed by those that benefit GREATLY from the capitalist system you desire to be "crushed". (it remains un-answered, stickdog's immediate follow-up query, " 'crushed' by what fist?")

To call this a facile take would be charitable. It's certainly not worthy of further exposition.

..snip..

Fuck's sake man. EVERYTHING is managed by those that benefit greatly from the capitalist system, because we live in a capitalist system designed for exactly that. Either you change the system (aka: crush capitalism, a hyperbolic way of saying we should stop with the neoliberal infinite-growth-Q2-results-uber-alles bullshit), or you work around the assholes and accept that the world isn't perfect.

[DrEvil]

The idea of CO2 saturation is, let's say, disputed. Here's one fairly detailed explanation: https://skepticalscience.com/saturated-co2-effect.htm

You can read the relevant papers or repeat the experiment for yourself, rather than googling the available propaganda. It's been duplicated several times and there are several papers, whether one uses the word 'saturated' or not.

Would love for this to be real, but I've seen so many of these devices come and go over the years...

Fortuntely for everyone, we don't have to rely on your internet skillz on this question either. The device is open source. Download the schematics and build one for yourself. Come back to us with your refutation after you've done it.

My problem isn't the engine, it's the proposed basis for it, which as far as I can tell is a Theory of Everything involving alien/Sanskrit math, a big dollop of numerology, and proves Intelligent Design and the existence of God.

Injecting water into combustion engines isn't exactly a novel concept, it's been done for almost a century, including in cars, and if done correctly has a similar effect to this device. Sounds to me like he's doing something with a trivial explanation and presenting it as something new and revolutionary. He also apparently figured out a simple and cheap way to do electrolysis, so yay I guess.

Extraordinary claims etc.

[Belligerent Savant]

Chris Martz
@ChrisMartzWX

Around 20,000 years ago, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations were at about 180 ppm. If they had dropped another 30 ppm, we would all be dead. At 150 ppm, photosynthesis becomes so inefficient that most plant life begins to die off and as a result, just about everything else.

We should be thankful it is now at 423 ppm or so. There is no evidence that 423 ppm is “too high” or dangerous for life on Earth. 800 ppm would be more ideal for optimal plant growth based on numerous studies. The carbon dioxide level in your room is likely even higher than that.

Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It is a necessary gas for life to exist on Earth, but climate mental patients demonize it because they’re useful idiots who just believe whatever government “experts” tell them.

https://x.com/ChrisMartzWX/status/1785692840367886395

[DrEvil]

^^He's missing the point. It's the rate of change and the amounts we're releasing in a relatively short span that's the problem. What we're doing right now, with eight billion people consuming everything in sight, is unprecedented. Drinking a normal amount of water per day keeps you alive, drinking a lot in a short time fucks up your system and can kill you, and that's what we're doing to the climate. Earth's kidneys can't keep up, metaphorically speaking, throwing the whole system out of balance.

[stickdog99]

https://tobyrogers.substack.com/p/think ... may-2-2024

...

Slippery slope

Warmistas: Just 100 companies are responsible for 71% of global emissions.
Everyone: Cool, let’s do something about that.

(30 years later)

Warmistas: Turns out they’re too powerful so we’re going to blame you, kill all the cows, put small farmers out of business, force you to eat bugs, confine you to ghettos, and set up a totalitarian global surveillance state.
Everyone: The hell you are.

Warmistas: But we’re all going to die of global warming.
Everyone: We’ll take our chances.

Warmistas: The oceans are boiling!
Everyone: The average sea surface temperature has increased by about 0.9°C since the pre-industrial era.

Warmistas: CO2 above 350 parts per million (ppm) will cause sea levels to rise.
Everyone: Why did Bill Gates and Barack Obama recently buy beach houses even though CO2 levels have already exceeded 420 ppm?

Warmistas: Global warming causes pandemics!
Everyone: The evidence is overwhelming that the biowarfare industrial complex causes pandemics and you are being used to cover up their crimes.

...

[Belligerent Savant]

New study:

Water vapor is 84x better at absorbing radiation than CO2.

CO2 and T are negatively correlated 42% of the last 50 million years.

Clouds drove 89% of 1982-2018 warming.

"CO2..lacks sufficient enthalpy to have any measurable [climate] effect"

https://scirp.org/pdf/ijg_2024032514494686.pdf

https://x.com/Kenneth72712993/status/17 ... 4603148711

[Belligerent Savant]

Post-1980s Increases In Shortwave Radiation Explains Europe’s Warming Trends Far Better Than CO2.. Across Europe there has been a downward trend in cloud and aerosol albedo over the last 40 years, allowing more solar radiation to reach the surface. This “brightening” effect thus explains recent warming.

https://notrickszone.com/2024/04/29/pos ... -than-co2/

https://x.com/ClimateRealists/status/17 ... 7436351855

[DrEvil]

New "study". Red flags ahoy! It's published by Scientific Research Publishing, a well known predatory publisher (they charge you to publish your work, which results in the whole thing becoming a vanity project for idiots everywhere. Look! I've been published!), known for spamming emails to solicit papers, stealing already published papers and republishing them, and generally just being raging money-grubbing assholes.

The authors of the above "paper" are Michael Nelson, Retired (chemical engineer and patent attorney), and David B. Nelson, Independent Researcher (of what? I assume if he had a degree in anything relevant he would mention it). Most likely they paid to have this published with SRP because no one serious would touch it.

As for the paper: already in the introduction they show themselves to be biased and cherry-picking quotes. They quote from the 1990 IPCC report, the very first one, and treat it as if that's still what the IPCC is saying. Never mind the 34 intervening years and multiple newer reports.

Anyway, looks like a vanity paper written by two unqualified retirees with nothing better to do. Michael has one previous article to his name: Climate Change Science & Propaganda, published in 2015 (same "journal"). Wonder what his views on the topic are.

Edit: And the person behind that Twitter handle is a fucking moron, per his tweet on Jan 6, 2023:
https://twitter.com/ClimateRealists/sta ... 2518462466

"BBC and Met Office drop the ball on Climate theory by promoting the rise in U.K. temperatures and then show a thirty year downward trend in U.K. emissions.. go figure.."

Because everyone knows that each country's emissions stay within its borders. There's no such thing as an "atmosphere" moving stuff around or anything. Holy Hell that's a dumb tweet.